CORPORATEN AREA BASKETBALL TRUST,INDORE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

(i) 30.06.2022 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Bhopal [“CIT(E)”] by which the assessee’s application dated 28.01.2020 for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of Income-tax Act, 1961 has been rejected.

Since these appeals relate to the same assessee and the controversy in both cases relates to grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi), they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

At the outset, we may take note of the background facts leadings to these two appeals. The assessee claims to be a trust engaged in charitable activity and having registration from Income-tax Department u/s 12A vide order dated 30.09.2019 effective from AY 2019-20. The first appeal is such that the assessee sought approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) from AY 2020-21 onwards and for this purpose, filed application dated 28.01.2020 to CIT(E). However, vide order dated 17.08.2020, the CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application.

The Registry has informed that this appeal has been filed on 16.11.2023 against order dated 30.06.2022 which is after a delay of 1 year and 76 days (the assessee has mentioned a delay of 470 days in condonation application) and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application, the same is scanned and re-produced below:

Referring to the averments made by assessee in above application, Ld. AR submitted that in the course of preparation of the assessee was advised by counsel to also prefer appeal against the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by CIT(E), this has resulted in a delay of 470 days in filing . Ld. AR then submitted that the delay is unintentional and without any malafide intention, hence the same must be condoned and this appeal be admitted for hearing. Ld. DR for revenue strongly opposed the assessee’s application and submitted that the delay of 470 days is inordinate. He further submitted that the filing of appeal after a delay of 470 days is just an after-though of assessee. He submitted that the reason advanced by assessee does not justify condonation. He prayed to dismiss assessee’s request.

After a careful consideration we find that the and are very much different although seemingly they are same because both of them deal with rejection of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi). While the relates to grant of approval from AY 2020-21, the ITA No. 77/Ind/2023 relates to revocation of provisional approval for the period from 15.10.2021 to AY 2024-25 and also grant of final approval for that period under new provisions introduced in section 80G(5) from 01.04.2021. Therefore, the approvals sought in these appeals are for different periods, under different provisions and will have different implications; there is no co-relation of two appeals. That apart, the assessee filed 16.11.2023 whereas he had already filed ITA

We have carefully perused the impugned order passed by CIT(E). We find that firstly in Para No. 2, the CIT(E) has re-produced the show-cause notice dated 03.01.2023 issued by him to assessee. Thereafter, in next para No. 3, he has mentioned that the assessee has filed adjournment application dated 09.01.2023 in response to his notice, therefore notice was again issued on 11.01.2023 and hearing was fixed on 19.01.2023 with final opportunity but the assessee has neither filed any information/ documents nor submitted any reply. Then, in next Para 4, the CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application. Therefore, the CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application because of non-compliance by assessee without making any adjudication on merit. In the situation, to meet the end of justice and fair play, we feel it appropriate to give one more opportunity to assessee-trust considering the fact that it is registered u/s 12A and claiming to be engaged in charitable activity. Accordingly, we re-store this matter back to CIT(E) for passing order afresh after giving necessary hearing to assessee. Needless to mention that the CIT(E) shall pass an Corporaten Area Basketball Trust, Indore. ITA No. 77/Ind/2023 appropriate order after considering assessee’s submission without being influenced by his previous order. The assessee is also directed to make representation in the hearings fixed by CIT(E) failing which the CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Resultantly, is allowed for statistical purpose.