JAIN FOUNDATION,SECUNDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 335/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Jain Foundation, a registered trust, which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, rejecting their applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2024-2025. The appeals were initially delayed by 89 days due to the auditor's preoccupation with other professional commitments and the late discovery of adverse orders while filing the income tax return. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and condoned it, citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) had not adequately considered the information previously submitted by the assessee, warranting a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712121 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U. MINI CHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P VINOD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2024-2025 Jain Foundation, SECUNDERABAD. PAN AADTJ7891B vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Hyderabad – 500 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P Vinod, Advocate For Revenue : MS U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.07.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : The above appeals are filed by the Assessee against the separate orders both dated 28.09.2024 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, in rejecting the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB seeking for registration u/sec.12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], respectively, relating to assessment year 2024-2025. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 2. At the very out, it is noticed that there is a delay of 89 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee drew the attention of the Bench with respect to the affidavit and petition filed by the Auditor who is looking after the affairs of the assessee trust and submitted that, there are genuine and bonafide reasons in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the concerned Auditor is assisting the assessee in the process of filing replies and information on 27.04.2024 and 22.05.2024 in the course of proceedings before the learned CIT(E) for registration and approval u/sec.12AA and 80G of the Act. Thereafter, he was pre- occupied with his other professional work. He submitted that, when the Auditor logged into the income tax portal of the assessee on 15.11.2024 to file return of income for the assessment year 2024-2025, it was noticed that, adverse orders are passed by the learned CIT(E) and the same were immediately intimated to the assessee-trust for taking necessary action. Thereafter, the Auditor was preoccupied Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 with their audit, income tax return filing/updating returns which was extended up-to 15.01.2025 and requested the assessee to get back to him after some time. He submitted that, in the second week of February, 2025, one of the Trustees approached him to ascertain about the filing of appeals against the orders of the learned CIT(E) passed u/sec.12AA and 80G of the Act. Considering the fact that, it is relatively new area of work to him, he advised the assessee to engage a Counsel who regularly deals with Tax appeals and accordingly, the present appeals are filed on 27.02.2025 before the Tribunal with a delay of 89 days. He submitted that, the delay in filing of the appeals is neither willful nor wanton, but, due to the reasons stated above which are beyond the control of the assessee. He, submitted that, there is a ‘reasonable and sufficient cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal. He, therefore, pleaded that, the delay of 89 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal may please be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 3. Learned DR on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of the delay of 89 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that, the assessee was failed to file the appeals before the Tribunal within the stipulated period and furnished vague and general reasons and, therefore, he submitted that, since there is no ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay, the delay in filing of appeals before the Tribunal, should not be condoned and that the appeals of the assessee be dismissed in limine. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We find force in the submissions of the assessee that, there is a reasonable and sufficient cause, beyond the control of the assessee, which prevented the assessee in not filing the appeals before the Tribunal within the time prescribed under the Act. We find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisituon vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down certain principles for condoning the delay and also directed the lower courts to Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 follow a lenient approach for condoning the delay. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra), there is no dispute if an appeal is dismissed on account of technicalities, a meritorious case may be thrown-out of judicial review. Therefore, while condoning the delay, the courts must have a liberal approach or lenient approach considering the reasons given by the petitioners or appellants. Therefore, going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra) and also considering the submissions of the assessee, we condone the delay of 89 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee trust viz., “Jain Foundation” is a registered trust. The main objects of the trust are to create, enhance, encourage and promote the interest of the public in social work/activities, general, skill and medical education and activities, social activities, moral and secular education and to help the people to develop their personality according to the ideals of Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 the Indian Culture in general and Jain Culture in particular and such other philosophy which may help in eradicating the sufferings of human being without any discrimination of caste, creed, religion or society. 6. Shri P. Vinod, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the assessee trust made an application in Form 10AB to the learned CIT(E) seeking for registration u/sec.12AB and approval u/sec.80G of the Act. The learned CIT(E) issued notices dated 27.04.2024 and 22.05.2024. The assessee trust has furnished information. However, the learned CIT(A) noted that, the assessee has furnished partial information and, therefore, issued another notice dated 19.09.2024 calling the assessee to furnish full information. Learned Counsel for the Assessee explained the reasons for not responding to the notice and according to the Counsel for the Assessee, the notice issued by the learned CIT(E) not served upon the assessee and, therefore, the assessee could not reply to the last notice dated 19.09.2024 issued by the learned CIT(E). Further, the learned CIT(E) dismissed the application of the assessee for Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 non-compliance from the assessee. However, failed to consider even the information submitted by the assessee, in response to earlier notices, while rejecting the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB seeking for registration u/sec.12AA and approval u/sec.80G of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that, one more opportunity of hearing needs to be provided to the assessee by setting aside the order of the learned CIT(E) and remit the issue back to the learned CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the issue afresh, by providing reasonable opportunity to hearing to the assessee. 7. MS U. Mini Chandran, learned CIT-DR supporting the order of the learned CIT(E), on the other hand, submitted that, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(E) and failed to furnish full information along with documentary evidences, the learned CIT(E) has rightly rejected the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB seeking for registration u/sec.12AB and approval u/sec.80G of the Act. She, accordingly, pleaded that the orders of the learned CIT(E) Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 should be upheld. However, did not strongly opposed for remitting the issues back to the file learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that, there is a merit in the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee to the effect that, the learned CIT(E) neither appreciated the reasons explained by the assessee for not filing the information nor considered the information submitted by the assessee in response to earlier notices issued, while rejecting the application filed by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee needs to be given in the interest of justice. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the learned CIT(E) and restore the issue back to the file of learned CIT(E), with a direction to re-consider the application filed by the assessee seeking for registration u/sec.12AB and approval u/sec.80G of the Act, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 assessee and also consider relevant evidences filed by the assessee in support of it’s application. 9. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 21st July, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. Jain Foundation, 2-3-530, Terapanth Bhawan, Terapanth Marg, DV Colony, Minister Road, SECUNDERABAD. PIN – 500 003. Telangana. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-(Exemptions), Hyderabad. 5. The DR ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "