SHREE SHREYASKAR ADINATH SWETAMBAR MURTI POOJAK TAPAGACH JAIN SANGH,DHASAGAM, BHAVNAGAR-364290 vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

A.Y. N.A. Page No 2 Shree Shreyaskar Adinath Swetambbhar Murtipoojak Tapagachh-Jain Samaj vs. CIT (E)

At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 318 days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal and has also filed affidavit along with such application. In the aforesaid application-affidavit, the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(E) Ahmedabad rejected the registration of the assessee u/s. 12A of the Act. The said order rejecting the application was communicated to the assessee on 16-09-2022 and the time limit to file appeal before ITAT expired on 15-11-2022. There was a delay of 318 days in filing of appeal and the assessee submitted that the aforesaid delay was on account of the fact that the order passed by CIT(E), Ahmedabad was sent to an email id which did not belong to the assessee. It was submitted that while making the application for registration u/s. 12A of the Act, the assessee inadvertently submitted that an incorrect email id, which did not belong to it. Accordingly, the aforesaid order rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s. 12A of the Act was never received by the assessee, which led to delay in filing of the present appeal.

Looking into the facts of the case and the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee, we are of the considered view that delay in filing of the present appeal was on account of an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee in mentioning the correct email id and therefore the order of ld. CIT(E) dismissing the application for registration was never received by the A.Y. N.A. Page No 3 Shree Shreyaskar Adinath Swetambbhar Murtipoojak Tapagachh-Jain Samaj vs. CIT (E) assessee. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, the application for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned.

On merits, the counsel for the assessee submitted that since incorrect email had been inadvertently mentioned in the application for grant of registration u/s. 12A of the Act, none of the notices of hearing issued by ld. CIT(E) were received by the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(E) dismissed the application for grant of registration on account of non- appearance on the part of the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee trust is carrying on genuine activities and if given an opportunity, it would present its case on merits to the satisfaction of ld. CIT(E). It was submitted that it was only owing to inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee that that it could not receive the notices of hearing and ld. CIT(E) did not get an opportunity to consider the assessee’s case on merits. Accordingly, it was prayed that the order passed by ld. CIT(E) may be set aside for deno-vo consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Looking into the facts of the instant case and the arguments put before us by the ld. counsel for the assessee, in the interest of justice, the matter is being restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) for de-novo consideration to pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the event, the assessee does not cause appearance before CIT(E) along with supporting documents to demonstrate the genuineness of activities, then ld. CIT(E) is directed to pass an order on the basis of material available on record, in accordance with law.

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