AMRITAM PRASADAM FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT (E), JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 594/JPR/2023 cuke The CIT (Exemption) Amritam Prasadam Foundation 9, Ganesh Colony, Brahampuri Road, Vs. Jaipur. Jaipur-302002. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AAKAA3386 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby :Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri Ajey Malik(CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/11/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 vkns'k@ORDER

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee against orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [herein after referred to as “Ld.CIT(E)] both dated 20.09.2022passed under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2.1

“1. That the ld. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur has erred seriously on facts and in law to reject the application of the assessee for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without allowing opportunity to the appellant.

2 ITA No. 594/JPR/2023 Amritam Prasadam Foundation vs. CIT(E) 2. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before hearing.” 3.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 306 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :-

“In the above case the order under challenge was passed by the Id. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur vide his order dated 20.09.2022 which was uploaded in the online account of the appellant The office bearers of the assessee institution could not come to know about passing of such order since none of them is expert in e mails, computer net working etc. (Details about the office bearers are enclosed in support of the same) and none of them accessed the online account for last so many months. This order could come to their notice very recently when for filing the ITR their online account was accessed and hence the instant appeal could be filed on 22.09.2023 with a delay of 307 days (as the appeal was to be filed on or before 19.11.2022. whereas could be filed on 22.09.2023). The delay so occurred is requested to be condoned on acocunt of following reasons:- 1. There was no malafide intention on the part of office bearers in filing appeal with delay of 307 days. There were genuine reasons for the delay as mentioned hereinabove duly supported with an affidavit of the president of the institution. 2. The appellant is a charitable institution and due to non condonation of delay. charitable activities of the institution will suffer adversely. The appellant commits that all precautions would be taken by the institution in future, to avoid any such delay in any proceeding required under any law of the country. Your honours are sincerely requested to condone the delay in filing appeal and hear the appeal on merits and oblige.” To this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

3 ITA No. 594/JPR/2023 Amritam Prasadam Foundation vs. CIT(E) 3.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties and the delay of 306 days is on account of the technical glitches resulting delay with a hope that the assessee will be permitted to reply online and in that hope there happens delay. Considering the various judicial precedent where in the courts has considered and ignored technicality of the reasons and has considered the delay. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) directed the other courts to consider the liberal approach in deciding the petition for condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk. 3.3 On the other hand ld. DR representing the revenue submitted that the assessee has engaged the counsel and the reasons applicable was denied on account of non co-operation from the side of the assessee and the reasons are not sufficient to condone the delay and therefore, objected to the petition for condonation of delay. 3.4 We have heard the rival contentions and persuaded the petition advanced for condonation of delay. Since, the reasons advanced are sufficient to condone the delay and respectfully following the finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court and settled principles as laid down that in the interest of the justice a liberal approach is to be taken and considering the non disputed fact that there were technical glitches on the

4 ITA No. 594/JPR/2023 Amritam Prasadam Foundation vs. CIT(E) portal we find merits in the reasons advanced. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay in filling the appeals by the assessee. 4. Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assesee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- “1. The applicant filed online application online on 19.03.2022 in Form No. 10AB for seeking exemption u/s 80G of the Income Tax, 1961. 2. As per rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rule, 1962, the registration u/s 12A/12AA or notification u/s 10(23C) is a precondition for granting approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961. Vide this office order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/1045689607(1) dated 20.03.2023 the applicant society/trust/samiti has been denied registration u/s 12AB. Therefore, it is not eligible for exemption u/s 80G of the IT Act, 1961. 3. In view of above discussion, the application in form No. 10AB seeking exemption u/s 80G is rejected. The applicant is, however, at liberty to apply afresh after completing the requisite details.”

5 ITA No. 594/JPR/2023 Amritam Prasadam Foundation vs. CIT(E) For permanent registration u/s 12A the Id. CIT (E) issued notices to the appellant for producing various information and documents through online mode which could not be noticed by the office bearers of the institution as none of them is computer savvy and no reply could be submitted and hence its application u/s 12A was rejected vide order dated 20.09.2022. Based on the rejection of registration u/s 12A its application for registration u/s 80G was also rejected on the very same day. It is the rejection u/s 80G the appellant has filed this instant appeal with a request to kindly allow one opportunity to the assessee for complying with the directions of the Id. CIT (E) and hence the application for permanent registration u/s 80G may kindly be restored back to the file of the Id CIT (E) and oblige. So far as its permanent registration u/s 12A is concerned the applicant has filed a fresh application on 22.09.2023 which is pending for action before the Id. CIT (E). Kindly restore the application for permanent approval u/s 80G to the Id. CIT (E), Jaipur and oblige.

8 We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. We observed that so far as its permanent registration u/s 12A is concerned the assessee has filed a fresh application on 22.09.2023

6 ITA No. 594/JPR/2023 Amritam Prasadam Foundation vs. CIT(E) which is pending for action before the ld. CIT(E) and also the Bench noted that ld. CIT(E) has rejected the applications of the assessee u/s 80G(5) of the Act as narrated above in the respective order that the applicant failed to submit the details called for. Further, it is also noted that ld. CIT(E) in the appeal of the assessee pertaining to granting approval u/s 80G of the Act has been rejected with following observation.

It is also pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing in the appeal, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he was deprived off availing adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in the application for registration/recognition. The Bench does not want to go into merit of the case but it is imperative that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). In this view of the matter, the Bench feels that the assessee should be given one more chance to contest the case before the ld. CIT(E) and the ld. AR of the assessee is directed to produce all the relevant papers concerning the

7 ITA No. 594/JPR/2023 Amritam Prasadam Foundation vs. CIT(E) application so filed before the ld. CIT(E) to settle the dispute raised hereinabove.

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत