SRI LAKSHMI NARAYANA PERUMAL SEVA TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT-EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 500/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 June 2024Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the ill health of the Managing Trustee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to submit the required documents and therefore set aside the order.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act in Form No.10AB. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the application citing non-furnishing of Form No.10A and Form No.10AC.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB was justified without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee to furnish required documents. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12AB,Section 10AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 25.06.2024Pronounced: 25.06.2024

आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai dated 07.09.2023, rejecting Form No.10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) filed for seeking registration/approval/recognition u/s.12AB of the Act.

- 2 - /Chny/2024 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 112 days. The facts of the case are that the order by CIT(E) is dated 07.09.2023. As per Form 36, the assessee has received this order on 07.09.2023 and appeal should have been filed on or before 06.11.2023 but appeal was actually filed on 26.02.2024 and thereby, there is a delay of 112 days. The assessee filed condonation petition along with affidavit for condoning the delay of 112 days stating the following reason:- “The impugned rejection order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the CIT(E) ought to have been challenged on or before the prescribed due date but the appellant trust had filed the appeal with a delay of 112 days due to ill health of the Managing Trustee who is a senior citizen aged 74 years of age. The health of the appellant deteriorated from October drastically due to post Covid Complications as the appellant was affected by Covid twice

Subsequently, the appellant was bedridden due to poor functioning of immune system and with the routine medication not being effective, the appellant was adviced to undergo CT Scans of the Abdomen, Kidney, Ureter and Bladder on 24/1/2024 and was medically advised for minimum movement on account of weakness.

Thereafter, upon recovering in the month of February, 2024, the present appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with a delay of 112 days.”

2.1 When this was confronted to ld. CIT-DR, he could not controvert the above facts. After hearing rival contentions and going through the condonation petition, we find the reason stated by assessee as reasonable and sufficient and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

- 3 - /Chny/2024 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(E) rejecting the assessee application filed in Form No.10AB dated 01.03.2023 seeking recognition/registration for the assessee’s trust u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act for the reason that the assessee has not furnished copy of Form No.10A and copy of Form No.AC. For this, assessee has raised various grounds which are argumentative, factual and hence, need not be reproduced.

4.

Brief facts are that the assessee trust filed application for registration u/s.12AB in Form No.10AB u/s.12(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act dated 01.03.2023. The CIT(E) only noted that the assessee has not filed Form No.10A and does not have Form No.10AC and hence, the assessee’s application filed now dated 01.03.2023 in Form No.10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act is not maintainable. The CIT(E) noted this fact in paras 5 to 7 as under:- 5. In response, the applicant filed submission on 18.08.2023, which has been duly considered. However, the applicant failed to furnish a copy of Form No.10A and copy of Order of registration issued by Central Processing Centre (CPC) in Form No.10AC.

It shows that the applicant has not filed Form No.10A and does not have Form No.10AC issued by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, granting registration u/s 12AB.

- 4 - /Chny/2024 6. As per the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac) (ii), under which the applicant has filed the present Form No.10AB, the applicant is mandatorily required to be registered u/s 12AB. But, in the instant case the applicant has failed to register u/s 12AB and obtain Form No.10AC. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to file application in Form No.10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii). Hence, the same is rejected as the applicant has not offered any satisfactory explanation in spite of affording sufficient opportunity.

7.

On careful consideration of the above facts and circumstances, the above application filed on 01.03.2023 in Form No.10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) is treated as infructuous, non-maintainable and hence, the same is rejected for statistical purpose. However, no adverse inference is drawn against the applicant’s existing and valid registration, if any, as per law u/s.12AB.”

5.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee before us filed copy of Form No.10AC dated 19.10.2021. We also noted that the assessee has uploaded this Form No.10AC vide dated 18.08.2023, the provisional registration for recognition u/s.80G of the Act mistakenly and not recognition u/s.12A of the Act, which information otherwise made available in Form No.10A in row no.4c. Even otherwise, as contended by ld.counsel, the CIT(E) should have allowed opportunity to rectify and to file these documents before rejecting the assessee’s application. We are of the view that the CIT(E) has not allowed proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to file these papers. Hence, we set aside the order of - 5 - /Chny/2024 CIT(E) and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 25th June, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →