Kai Kashinath Posate Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Udgir, Udgir V. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 938/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2487 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHATA RATHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.938/PUN/2023 Kai Kashinath Posate Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Udgir, Sevabhavi Sanstha, At Post Udgir, Latur-413517 Maharashtra PAN : AADTK2418F Vs. CIT(Exemption) Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of CIT(Exemption), Pune dated 30.12.2022 denying grant of registration u/s.12A of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. The appellant is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The appellant submitted application in Form No.10AB dated 24.06.2022 seeking registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. On receipt of the said application, the ld. CIT, Exemption, in order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant trust, issued notice through Assessee by : Smt. Akshata Rathi Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel Date of hearing : 08.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 08.05.2024 ITA No.938/PUN/2023 2 ITBA portal calling upon the appellant to file certain information/clarification. However, for the reasons best known to the appellant trust, the appellant could not comply with the said notice. In the circumstances, the ld. CIT, (Exemption) drew adverse inference that the activities of the appellant trust are not genuine, accordingly denied the grant of registration u/s12A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before us with a delay of 176 days. The appellant trust also filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating that the notice was received on e-mail ID belonging to one Mr. Atul Karkhelikar, an employee of the sister trust. The said employee left the services of the said trust on 20.03.2023 without informing Trustees about the order passed by the CIT, Exemption, Pune. It is further stated that it is only on the alert issued by the Chartered Accountant of the Trust in the month of July, 2023 to verify whether or not any order was passed on the application made in Form 10AB for registration u/s.12A, it was found that an order was already passed by the CIT, Exemption rejecting grant of the registration u/s.12A of the Act. Then, the steps were initiated for filing the appeal and the same was filed on 23.08.2023 with a delay of 176 days. It is further stated that the CIT, Exemption ought not to have rejected the application for grant of registration without giving reasonable opportunity to comply with the ITA No.938/PUN/2023 3 notice. It is, therefore, prayed for remand of the matter to the CIT, Exemption condoning the delay. 4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed for remand of the matter to the CIT (Exemption) and condonation of delay placing reliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Basawaraj & Another Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer in Civil Appeal Nos.6974 & 6975/2013, dt.22-08-2013. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find there is a delay of 176 days in filing this present appeal before us. The appellant had explained the reasons for delay in filing appeal stating that the order was served on e-mail ID of the erstwhile employee of the sister trust who left the services without informing about the order passed by the CIT, Exemption, Pune. The above averments made in the affidavit filed for seeking condonation of delay remain uncontroverted. There is no material on record to disbelieve the averments made by the appellant trust. Further, we find that the appellant trust had the knowledge of passing of the impugned order only on 10.08.2023 and the appeal came to be filed on 23.08.2023. It is trite law that for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation, it is the date of the knowledge/receipt of the appellate order which has to be taken into consideration and not the date of passing the order. In the case of Golden Times Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in W.P.(C) ITA No.938/PUN/2023 4 No.402/2020, dt. 13-01-2020 the the Hon’ble High Court held that “A person who is aggrieved or concerned with an order would legitimately be expected to exercise his rights conferred by the provision and unless the order is communicated or is known to him, either actually or constructively, he would not be in a position to avail such a remedy”. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: “10. Be that as it may, the real question before us is as to what would be the relevant date for the purpose of commencement of period of limitation. To hold the date of the order to be the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the period of six months envisaged under Section 254(2) of the Act, can lead to several absurd and anomalous situations. An order passed without the knowledge of the aggrieved party, would render the remedy against the order meaningless as the same would be lost by limitation while the person aggrieved would not even know that an order has been passed. Such an interpretation would not advance the cause of justice and would not be the correct approach and thus cannot be countenanced. A person who is aggrieved or concerned with an order would legitimately be expected to exercise his rights conferred by the provision and unless the order is communicated or is known to him, either actually or constructively, he would not be in a position to avail such a remedy. The words “six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed” therefore, cannot be given a narrow and restrictive interpretation. There are several decisions of the Apex Court and other High Courts, where similar question came up for consideration. The Courts have always leaned in favour of an interpretation which would enable an aggrieved party to avail its remedy in a meaningful manner, so that the right conferred by a provision does not remain fanciful or illusionary..” In view of the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that there is no delay in filing the appeal, the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the order. Therefore, we admit the appeal for adjudication of the issues in appeal. ITA No.938/PUN/2023 5 6. On merits, we find that the ld. CIT (Exemption), Pune had given only one opportunity to comply with the notice issued by him through ITBA portal on 03.09.2022. Therefore, it is evident that the CIT, Exemption had not given reasonable opportunity to represent the matter before the CIT, Exemption. In our considered opinion and in order to meet the ends of justice, the matter requires remission to the file of CIT, Exemption for denovo disposal of the application in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant trust. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 08 th day of May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 08 th May, 2024 Satish आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune