Radha Krishna Mandir Trust Nansad, Surat V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 216/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2623 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JIDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANADA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.216/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2022-23) (Physical Court Hearing) Radha Krishna Mandir Trust Nansad, Patel Faliyu Nansad, Nansad, Surat, Valod, S.O. -394604 Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Room No.609, 6 th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Vejalpur, Nr. Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Anandanagar-Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-380015 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAETR 0733 K (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CA िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Ritesh Misra,CIT-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 26.02.2024 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing 30.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal filed by the appellant emanates from the order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad (in short, “the CIT(E)”) wherein Ld.CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). The ground raised by the appellant is as under: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in not granting permanent registration u/s 12AB of I.T. Act to the assesse trust. 2 ITA No.216/SRT/2024 / AY.22-23 Radha Krishna Mandir Trust Nansad 2. It is therefore prayed that order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) rejecting registration application of assesse may please be quashed. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or, delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. The appeal filed by the appellant is delayed by 278 days. The appellant has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the Ld.CIT(E) passed impugned order on 25.03.2023. Hence, the appellant was required to file appeal before the Tribunal on or before 24.05.2023. It was also stated that appellant-trust received provisional registration for AY 2021-22 to AYs 2023-24 after which it applied for permanent registration in Form No.10AB., which was rejected vide impugned order dated 25.03.2023. Since the appellant has applied for second provisional registration for the period from AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26, it was under the impression that another application for permanent registration can be made after expiry of second provisional registration. The original Ld. Counsel had advised that fresh application for permanent registration can be made even after rejection order in Form 10AD. Subsequently, the appellant approached another Ld. Counsel who informed that once the rejection order for permanent registration has been received, subsequent application for permanent registration cannot be filed and he advised the appellant to file appeal against the impugned order of Ld.CIT(E) before Tribunal. It is stated that appellant had no intention in not filing appeal before Tribunal within 3 ITA No.216/SRT/2024 / AY.22-23 Radha Krishna Mandir Trust Nansad the statutory limit of sixty days from receipt of the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(E). The Ld. AR submitted the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and it should be condoned in the interests of justice. 3. On the other hand, Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax – Departmental Representative (Ld.CIT-DR) for the Revenue has opposed the prayer of the assessee-trust for condonation of delay by stating that appellant has not made out a case for sufficient cause. 4. We have considered the reasons given by the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the appellant and perused the accompanied documents along with the affidavit and the submission made by Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue. We find that the delay of 278 days in filing the appeal was not intentional on the part of assesse as assessee was not properly advised by its original Ld.Counsel to file appeal before the Tribunal within the specified time. The appellant was advised by the second Ld. Counsel, the procedure for filing appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly it has filed the present appeal together with the affidavit for condonation of delay. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The reasons given by the appellant would constitute sufficient cause in terms of provision of Section 253(5) of the Act. Hence, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal. Now we proceed to dispose the appeal on merit. 4 ITA No.216/SRT/2024 / AY.22-23 Radha Krishna Mandir Trust Nansad 5. The fact of the present case in brief are that the application for registration u/s 12AB was filed electronically by the appellant in Form10AB under Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 on 29.09.2022. In addition to this some details were uploaded along with the application. In response notice dated 08.12.2022, appellant filed part details. Another notice was issued on 29.12.2022 requesting appellant to furnish pending details. In response thereto, the application has again furnished part details / documents. Hence, the Ld.CIT(E) disposed of the application for registration und 10AB of the Act on the basis of materials available on record. As per Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, the appellant / trust is required to attach with Form-10AB self-certified copy of its annual accounts of three years. The date of incorporation / registration of appellant-trust is on 20.05.2020, however, the applicant filed its activities for financial year 2020-21. In response of the specific requisition by the Ld.CIT(E), the application has not submitted the requisite details. Therefore, no verification of the objects as per the constitution / deed with the activities could be carried out. Therefore, the genuineness of the activities could not be established due to non-compliance of the appellant. Hence, the Ld.CIT(E) was not satisfied about the genuineness of the activities of the appellant-trust because he could not verify these activities in absence of the details made available to him by the appellant. The Ld.CIT(E) relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of 5 ITA No.216/SRT/2024 / AY.22-23 Radha Krishna Mandir Trust Nansad CIT Ujjain vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat in Civil Appeal No.2492 of 2014 and M/s New Noble Educational Society in Civil Appeal No.3795 of 2014. Since the appellant failed to file the documentary evidence to enable the Ld.CIT(E) to satisfy himself about the genuineness of its activities and to verify the activities in consonance with the objects of the appellant-trust, he rejected the application filed in Form-10AB for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(E), the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld.AR for the assessee has filed paper book containing pages 1 to 28 including (i) copy of reply filed before CIT(E); (ii) ITR filed for AY 21- 22; (iii) Acknowledgement of Form 10B for AY 21-22; (iv) Form-10B filed for AY 21-22; (v) Audit report for AY 21-22; (vi) Form 10AC; (vii) Form 10A (date 18.03.2021); (viii) Form 10A (date 08.05.2021) and (ix) Form 10A (date 29.03.2023). Therefore, the conclusion of Ld.CIT(E) that requisite details have not been filed is not correct. The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for registration as the assessee could not file relevant documents and evidences before the Ld.CIT(E). However, now the assessee is ready to submit relevant documents and details before the Ld.CIT(E) and hence matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. 6 ITA No.216/SRT/2024 / AY.22-23 Radha Krishna Mandir Trust Nansad 7. On the other hand, Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee-trust was negligent during the proceedings before Ld.CIT(E). He did not object if the Bench restores the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(E). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that Ld.CIT(E) issued two notices on 08.12.2022 and 29.12.2022 but the appellant filed only part details due to which genuineness of the activities of the appellant-trust and whether activities are in consonance with objects of the trust could not be verified by the Ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, he rejected the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. On the other hand, the Ld. AR stated that various details had been physically submitted in the office of the Ld.CIT(E) and some other documents were uploaded in the Income-tax portal. Be that as it may, the Ld. AR submitted that the appellant would again submit all details and evidence require by Ld.CIT(E) if matter is restored to him. The Ld. CIT-DR does not have any objection, if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E). Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to file relevant documents and evidences before Ld. CIT(E) and to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(E). It is settled law that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to present its case. Therefore, without delving much into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for de novo 7 ITA No.216/SRT/2024 / AY.22-23 Radha Krishna Mandir Trust Nansad adjudication and to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file necessary documents and evidences needed by the Ld. CIT(E) as and when called for. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2024 after closing of hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER स ू रत/Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 30/04/2024 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat