Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Jaipur V. CIT(E), Jaipur

ITA 300/JPR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7170 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,VC, JAIPUR Jh laanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 298/JP/2021 Jagdamba Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AACAJ6724B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 299/JP/2021 Shri Narayan Dham Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAQAS2197F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 300/JP/2021 Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AACAR9491B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 24.02.2022. ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 10/03/2022. 2 ITA Nos. 298, 299 & 300/JP/2021 Jagdamba Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur, Shri Narayan Dham Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur & Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Jaipur. vkns'k@ ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These three appeals by the separate assessees are directed against three separate orders of ld. CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur dated 10.07.2018 and 13.03.2021 passed under section 12AA of the I.T. Act respectively. In all these appeals grounds raised are common, therefore, all the appeals are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We take the appeal in ITA No. 298/JP/2021 for adjudication and the outcome of the same, will be applicable to other two appeals captioned herein above. The Grounds raised in ITA No. 298/JP/2021 are reproduced below :- ITA No. 298/JP/2021 “ 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting registration u/s 12AA to the assessee trust. The action of ld. CIT (Exemptions) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by allowing the registration u/s 12AA. 2. The assessee craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 2. The appeal is delayed by 1187 days. The due date for filing the appeal expired on 09.07.2018. The assessee is a trust based in rural area and is maintained and run by various trustees who are rural residents. The assessee has filed condonation application along with an Affidavit requesting to condone the delay in 3 ITA Nos. 298, 299 & 300/JP/2021 Jagdamba Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur, Shri Narayan Dham Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur & Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Jaipur. filing the appeal on the ground that the delay was not willful. It also submitted that the trustees of assessee trust were not conversant in the field of taxation and also not aware of the remedy of appeal and they were also not advised by the tax consultant to file the appeal. Further, the ld. A/R for the assessee submitted that since the compilation of details as required took time, the assessee trust sought adjournments but the ld. CIT (E) without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee trust, considering the delay in submitting the certain documents as required, passed the order under section 12AA(1)(b) of the IT Act on 10.07.2018 rejecting the application for registration under section 12AA of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) wherein it has been held as under :- “ The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting S. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on “merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the end of justice – that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts.” The ld. A/R submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due to the reason that the trustees of the assessee trust having rural background, have no knowledge of income-tax law. Thus the ld. A/R has pleaded 4 ITA Nos. 298, 299 & 300/JP/2021 Jagdamba Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur, Shri Narayan Dham Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur & Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Jaipur. that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and since the impugned order was passed ex parte, therefore, the matter may be set aside to the record of the ld. CIT (E). 3. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 1187 days in filing the present appeal and the assessee has not explained a reasonable cause for such delay. The ld. D/R has contended that the reasons and cause of delay explained by the assessee cannot be considered as reasonable. He has supported the order of the ld. CIT (E). 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee has explained the delay of 1187 days in filing the appeal is neither willful nor intentional. The assessee trust had sufficient cause. The trustees of assessee trust being not conversant in the field of taxation, were not aware of the remedy of appeal and were also not advised to file the appeal. Hence, the delay was on bonafide grounds. In the affidavit, the President of the assessee trust has explained that all the trustees of trust do not understand complex subject like Income Tax and thus not aware of the remedial action to be taken against such impugned order. We note that the ld. CIT (E) passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the assessee for registration on the ground that the assessee trust had neither appeared before him nor produced the required documents for verification. We further note that the ld. CIT (E) has dismissed the application of the assessee for want of any submission or other supporting evidence and, therefore, in 5 ITA Nos. 298, 299 & 300/JP/2021 Jagdamba Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur, Shri Narayan Dham Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur & Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Jaipur. the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that though the assessee is guilty of negligence in not appearing before the ld. CIT (E) and further not filing the appeal within the period of limitation before the Tribunal, however, since the order of the ld. CIT (E) is passed ex parte, therefore, we condone the delay of 1187 days in filing the present appeal. Since the order passed by the ld. CIT (E) is ex parte and without considering any documentary evidence to be filed by the assessee, hence the matter is set aside to the record of the ld. CIT (E) for granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then decide the matter afresh after considering the arguments as well as the documentary evidence, if any, to be filed by the assessee. While reaching to the above conclusion, we have also taken into consideration that the ld. CIT (E) had already granted registration in these cases on 20.03.2021, 13.03.2021 and 13.03.2021 with effect from assessment year 2021-22. 6. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/03/2022. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ½ ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10/03/2022. das/ 6 ITA Nos. 298, 299 & 300/JP/2021 Jagdamba Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur, Shri Narayan Dham Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur & Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Jaipur. vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Jagdamba Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur, Shri Narayan Dham Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur and Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent-The CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 298, 299 & 300/JP/2021} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar 7 ITA Nos. 298, 299 & 300/JP/2021 Jagdamba Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur, Shri Narayan Dham Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Jaipur & Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Jaipur. Sl. No. Date Initial 1 Date of dictation 2 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ............ Other Member................. 3 Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 4 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 5 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. 6 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 7 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 8 The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9 Date of Dispatch of the Order