Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh dated 22.09.2022 and 23.09.2022 Challenging therein rejection respectively.
There was a delay of 266 days in filing these appeals. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices issued to the society have never been received and hence, assessee could not furnish any reply to the queries raised by the CIT(E) who has in turn passed an order ex-parte qua the appellant assessee on 22.09.2022. The ld. AR submitted that the profile of the assessee trust has also been updated with the mobile number/email as per documentary evidence filed on (APB Pg. No. 4).
Since, the assessee and his counsel did not receive any intimation of hearing either on his mobile number or email ids and hence, it has bonafide reason for non-compliance on account of lack of communication. The ld. counsel has also submitted that the assessee has changed its counsel on receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on its registered email when he came to know about the order of the rejection passed by the CIT(E) u/s 12AB/80G of the Act. The screenshot of the Income Tax Portal has been filed on record (ABP Pg. No. 5). The ld. AR has argued that there was a bonafide reason for delay in filing the appeal relying on the judgment of the coordinate Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Triumph International Finance India Ltd. bearing for AY 2017-18 wherein the Tribunal has held as under:
“The year 2019 being the initial year of shift towards digital and electronic mode, the mistake appears to be bona-fide. The assessee has been able to show reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.” The counsel further placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Amritsar Bench in the case of Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions (P)
Ltd., v. PCIT (Central), Ludhiana in for AY 2013-14 dated 26.12.2021 wherein the Tribunal by following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others (Civil Appeal Nos.
8183-8184 of 2013) held as under:
“The principles that emanate from the above said decisions are that, in the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeals beyond the limitation period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided the litigant is able to demonstrate that there was "sufficient cause" in preferring appeal beyond the limitation period. The Courts have also held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Hence the question of condonation of delay is a factual matter and the result would depend upon the facts of the case and the cause shown by the assessee for the delay. It has also been opined that generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.” 2.1. Considering the bona-fide reason for delay in filing the appeal, the delay of 266 days is condoned, and appeals admitted on merits. registration/approval has stated that on the stipulated date of hearing neither any submission was made nor was any request for adjournment or other communication received from the applicant through any channel.
Another letter granting the necessary opportunity was issued to the applicant on 30.08.2022 and the matter was fixed for reply by 07.09.2022.
On this date, likewise, neither any online/offline reply was submitted nor was any request for adjournment or other communication received from the applicant. In the interests of natural justice, final opportunity was then accorded to the applicant on 10.09.2022 and the matter was fixed for 14.09.2022. However once again, no reply has been furnished in the case nor any communication received from the applicant through any channel even till the date of passing of this order. Given the non-compliance on the aforesaid occasions afforded to the applicant, it becomes evident that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the matter. In the absence of submissions regarding the activities, it is difficult to verify both the nature of objects & genuineness of the activities of the applicant. It can safely be concluded that the queries raised could not be answered satisfactorily by the applicant. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh has Tax Act, 1961 vide order, dated 22.09.2022 and 23.09.2022 respectively.
4. The learned council for the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh was not justified in refusal to grant registration u/s 12AA and approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order, dated 22.09.2022 and23.09.2022, as such, denial of the claim for exemption u/s 12AA and approval u/s 80G is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. AR submitted that said society was engaged in medical aid, distribution of free medicine to the weaker section of the society and also providing Ambulance to them during the previous year and the same is then provided too much needed persons in case of emergency; that the notices of hearing as may have been issued by the Ld. CIT (Exemption), were neither received in ‘physical mode’ nor through portal, which the assessee could access, nor the same were in the knowledge and, as such, the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in complying with the notices as sent by the Ld.CIT (Exemptions). Further, no intimation about the notice was sent through email/SMS to the assessee before finalization of case. Meaning thereby, that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not attending the proceedings before the CIT (Exemptions). The AR argued relying on the judgment of Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Triumph International Finance India Ltd. bearing for AY 2017-18 that since the system of e-communication has been a recent development, many people’s are not aware of the same and, as such, lenient view deserves to be taken. He prayed that notwithstanding the above said facts, the assessee has good and arguable case for granting registration u/s 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and, as such, the order of CIT (Exemptions) may, please, be set aside. In support, he filed a brief note, and relevant part is extracted as under:
“The Worthy CIT(Ex.) issued three notices with a gap of almost 10 days each and none of the notice as evident from the below chart showing the date of questionnaire/notice issued and the service of the same:
Date of issue of notice Due Date Service 18.08.2022 29.08.2022 Notice was not received on the registered email-id of the Assessee Society and no 30.08.2022 07.09.2022 any intimation of the same was received on the registered mobile number. That said fact also verifiable from the 10.09.2022 14.09.2022 screenshot of each notice of the Income Tax Portal wherein the email id on which notice has been served is showing ‘BLANK’, (Enclosed herewith at Page No. 1 to 3)
7 & 234/Asr/2023 Nobel Welfare Society v. CIT It is clear from the above table that no notice was served upon the Assessee Society and as such the Assessee was completely unaware about the proceedings being concluded and the rejection order was passed against the assessee ex-parte. The profile of assessee trust has been updated with the mobile number/email also as per copy of the evidence is being enclosed herewith for your ready reference at Page No.
However, the assessee and his counsel did not receive any intimation of hearing on his mobile numbers and email IDs also and even the Worthy CIT(Ex.) could have looked into the Portal of the assessee for the email id on which the notice could have been sent.”
Per Contra, the learned additional CIT (DR) stands by the impugned orders. However, he has no objection to the request of the council of the assessee in view of natural justice.
We have heard both the sides, perused the record and impugned orders. Admittedly, the notices of hearing issued by the Ld. CIT (Exemption), were neither received in ‘physical mode’ nor through portal, by the appellant and consequently, the assessee couldn’t access the same as these were not in its knowledge. In our view, the system of e- communication has been a recent development, many people’s are not aware of the same and, as such, lenient view deserves to be taken.
Meaning thereby, that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not attending the proceedings before the CIT Bench in the case of Triumph International Finance India Ltd. (Supra).
Considering the peculiar facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the assessee has good and arguable case for granting registration u/s 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.In view of principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to remand back the matter regarding grant of registration under section 12 AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act to the file of the Ld. CIT exemption for afresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and after considering the written submissions filed on the record and to be filed during fresh proceedings. Appellant and its council are also directed to corporate in the fresh proceedings by filing the requisite details in compliance to the queries raised by the learned CIT exemption for the purpose of adjudication of the matter of grant of registration u/s 12 AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act as per law.
Accordingly, the matters in both the appeals of the appellant regarding grant of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act are remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT Exemption for afresh adjudication as per law. statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2023