THE TSUKLAKHANG TRUST,GANGTOK, SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

It appears from the record that the appeal is time barred by 49 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition with referred to delay of 49 days. The Ld. Counsel submits that in fact assessee received the order for rejection of application for approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) dated 05.02.2024 and the same has come to Assessment Year: 00 The Tsuklakhang Trust the knowledge of the assessee only in 3rd week of May, 2024. The Ld. Counsel further submits that on perusal of the order it finds that it was an ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(E) and has been passed on 05.02.2024 and it was served on e-mail at any point of time. The Ld. Counsel further submits that after receipt of such order on e-portal the matter was forwarded to the tax consultants and thereby the matter was prepared and sent to us for signing etc. and in this way, there is some delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that delay was not intentional rather it was bonafide and his prayer is to admit the appeal after condoning the delay.

The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay.

Keeping in view the condonation petition as well as view of Apex Court that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue. The delay is hereby condoned.

The Ld. Counsel has challenged the impugned order of Ld. CIT(E) in which the application has been rejected only on this ground that the assessee did not produce any relevant documents for verification before the competent authority. The submission of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is that in fact all the necessary documents which were required by the Ld. CIT(E ) for granting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) were already in his possession as the trust deed, copies of accounts and all other relevant details were filed at the time of applying for provisional approval, hence such action of the Ld. CIT(E) in disallowing the application is arbitrarily and mechanical. The Ld. Counsel prayed to restore the case before the Ld. CIT(E) by giving opportunity to the assessee to place the entire documents required for registration.

The Ld. D.R though supports the order of Ld. CIT(E ) but did not raise any objection in restoring the case before the Ld. CIT(E ).

We have perused the case and found that the assessee had filed an application in Form 10AB for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. It further appears that notice was issued through ITBA fixed herein on 27.12.2023 but there was no compliance to the notice. Again, a notice was issued but there was no response from the assessee.