Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of
CIT(Exemption), Pune dated 30.12.2022 denying grant of registration
u/s.12A of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
The appellant is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust
Act, 1950. The appellant submitted application in Form No.10AB dated
24.06.2022 seeking registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. On
receipt of the said application, the ld. CIT, Exemption, in order to verify
the genuineness of activities of the appellant trust, issued notice through
ITA No.938/PUN/2023
ITBA portal calling upon the appellant to file certain
information/clarification. However, for the reasons best known to the
appellant trust, the appellant could not comply with the said notice. In
the circumstances, the ld. CIT, (Exemption) drew adverse inference that
the activities of the appellant trust are not genuine, accordingly denied
the grant of registration u/s12A of the Act.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before us with a delay of 176
days. The appellant trust also filed an affidavit praying for condonation
of delay stating that the notice was received on e-mail ID belonging to
one Mr. Atul Karkhelikar, an employee of the sister trust. The said
employee left the services of the said trust on 20.03.2023 without
informing Trustees about the order passed by the CIT, Exemption, Pune.
It is further stated that it is only on the alert issued by the Chartered
Accountant of the Trust in the month of July, 2023 to verify whether or
not any order was passed on the application made in Form 10AB for
registration u/s.12A, it was found that an order was already passed by
the CIT, Exemption rejecting grant of the registration u/s.12A of the Act.
Then, the steps were initiated for filing the appeal and the same was filed
on 23.08.2023 with a delay of 176 days. It is further stated that the CIT,
Exemption ought not to have rejected the application for grant of
registration without giving reasonable opportunity to comply with the
ITA No.938/PUN/2023
notice. It is, therefore, prayed for remand of the matter to the CIT,
Exemption condoning the delay.
On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed for
remand of the matter to the CIT (Exemption) and condonation of delay
placing reliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Basawaraj &
Another Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer in Civil Appeal
Nos.6974 & 6975/2013, dt.22-08-2013.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. At the outset, we find there is a delay of 176 days in filing this
present appeal before us. The appellant had explained the reasons for
delay in filing appeal stating that the order was served on e-mail ID of
the erstwhile employee of the sister trust who left the services without
informing about the order passed by the CIT, Exemption, Pune. The
above averments made in the affidavit filed for seeking condonation of
delay remain uncontroverted. There is no material on record to
disbelieve the averments made by the appellant trust. Further, we find
that the appellant trust had the knowledge of passing of the impugned
order only on 10.08.2023 and the appeal came to be filed on 23.08.2023.
It is trite law that for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation, it
is the date of the knowledge/receipt of the appellate order which has to
be taken into consideration and not the date of passing the order. In the
case of Golden Times Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in W.P.(C)
ITA No.938/PUN/2023
No.402/2020, dt. 13-01-2020 the the Hon’ble High Court held that “A
person who is aggrieved or concerned with an order would legitimately
be expected to exercise his rights conferred by the provision and unless
the order is communicated or is known to him, either actually or
constructively, he would not be in a position to avail such a remedy”.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
“10. Be that as it may, the real question before us is as to what would be the relevant date for the purpose of commencement of period of limitation. To hold the date of the order to be the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the period of six months envisaged under Section 254(2) of the Act, can lead to several absurd and anomalous situations. An order passed without the knowledge of the aggrieved party, would render the remedy against the order meaningless as the same would be lost by limitation while the person aggrieved would not even know that an order has been passed. Such an interpretation would not advance the cause of justice and would not be the correct approach and thus cannot be countenanced. A person who is aggrieved or concerned with an order would legitimately be expected to exercise his rights conferred by the provision and unless the order is communicated or is known to him, either actually or constructively, he would not be in a position to avail such a remedy. The words “six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed” therefore, cannot be given a narrow and restrictive interpretation. There are several decisions of the Apex Court and other High Courts, where similar question came up for consideration. The Courts have always leaned in favour of an interpretation which would enable an aggrieved party to avail its remedy in a meaningful manner, so that the right conferred by a provision does not remain fanciful or illusionary..” In view of the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion
that there is no delay in filing the appeal, the period of limitation should
be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the order. Therefore, we
admit the appeal for adjudication of the issues in appeal.
ITA No.938/PUN/2023
On merits, we find that the ld. CIT (Exemption), Pune had given
only one opportunity to comply with the notice issued by him through
ITBA portal on 03.09.2022. Therefore, it is evident that the CIT,
Exemption had not given reasonable opportunity to represent the matter
before the CIT, Exemption. In our considered opinion and in order to
meet the ends of justice, the matter requires remission to the file of CIT,
Exemption for denovo disposal of the application in accordance with law
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant trust.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 08th day of May, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 08th May, 2024 Satish
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune