BALVIKAS JANKLYAN & SANSKATIK SEVABHAVI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,AURANGABAD V. CIT EXEMPTION , PUNE

ITA 91/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Balvikas Jankalyan & Sanskratik Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, an educational society, which appealed against the rejection of their applications for registration under section 12AB(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act by the CIT (Exemption), Pune. The appeals were initially delayed by 13 days due to the society's representative being unaware of the filing deadline. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., found the delay to be due to 'reasonable cause' and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669588 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.92 and 91/PUN/2025 Balvikas Jankalyan & Sanskratik Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Plot No.54, New ST Colony, CIDCO, N-2, Aurangabad - 431001 Maharashtra PAN : AABTB5447K Vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned two appeals at the instance of appellant are against the rejection of applications for regular registration u/s.12AB(1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act respectively framed by ld.CIT(E) dated 23.10.2024. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. A perusal of the record shows that the instant appeals are barred by limitation by 13 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant stating as follows : “Application for condonation of delay U/s 5 of limitation Act In the Matter of appeal against the rejection of application for registration u/s 12AB of Balvikas Jankalyan & Sanskratik Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Aurangabad. Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 26.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 26.06.2025 ITA Nos.92 and 91/PUN/2025 Balvikas Jankalyan & Sanskratik Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal 2 Hon'ble Sir The petitioner most humbly submits as under:- 1) This petitioner is filing this appeal U/s 253 of Income Tax Act, before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which is based on very sound ground and this petitioner very hopeful in its success. However there is a delay in filling this appeal, therefore this petitioner has filed condonation of delay of filing appeal separate application for U/s 5 of Limitation Act. 2) That the petitioner has received order for rejection of application for registration U/s 12AB of income tax act 1961 on 23/10/2024. 3) In this case, the appeal was delayed by 13 days. This delay occurred because the society's representative handling this matter was unaware of the time limit for filing the appeal. Therefore, the society could not file the appeal within the limitation period. 4) That this act of not filling of appeal within prescribed period of limitation is not deliberate nor intentional but it is sheer an accidental. Hence in the interest of justice considering all the fact and circumstances delay of 13 days may kindly be condoned.” 3. After hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and considering the reasons giving rise to the delay and also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107) we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ appellant failed to file the appeals within the time limit stipulated under the Act. We therefore condone the delay of 13 days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. With the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative, we have perused the record and notice that the appellant filed applications for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii)/80G(5)(iii) of the Act by filing Form 10AB on 28.06.2024. Thereafter, ld.CIT(E) vide notice through ITBA portal on 29.07.2024 called for various details mentioned in pages 3 to 9 of the impugned orders. There was no compliance from the appellant’s side. Due to this failure ld.CIT(E) could not arrive at the conclusion about the ITA Nos.92 and 91/PUN/2025 Balvikas Jankalyan & Sanskratik Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal 3 genuineness of the activities of appellant and the compliance of requirement of any other law. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also observing that the appellant society which has been registered with the object of noble vision to make quality education accessible to all sections of society particularly the economically disadvantaged and also engaged in providing primary and secondary education, in the interest of justice, we deem it to afford one more opportunity to the appellant to file necessary details before ld. CIT(E) as called for during the course of impugned proceedings based on which ld.CITE) shall decide in accordance with law. We therefore remit the issue of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act as well as approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(E) shall afford reasonable opportunity to the appellant to prove the genuineness of the activities. Appellant can make necessary submissions with regard to the grounds of appeal raised before us. After considering the submissions of the appellant, ld.CIT(E) shall decide the appellant’s applications in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. Appellant is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders are set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.92 and 91/PUN/2025 Balvikas Jankalyan & Sanskratik Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal 4 6. In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 26th day of June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 26th June, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "