NATIONAL WOMENS ORGANISATION,PUNE V. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 819/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the National Women's Organisation, which appealed against the decision of the CIT (Exemption), Pune, rejecting their application for registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was initially delayed by 847 days, for which the organisation provided an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, citing misguidance by a consultant and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found merit in the organisation's reasons for the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The main contention in the appeal was the lack of sufficient opportunity provided by the CIT (Exemption) to present and substantiate their case, which the Tribunal agreed warranted a fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712968 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 339
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHWETA JOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 12A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.819/PUN/2025 National Womens Organisation, B 16, Shanti Vihar, Bhavdan, Pune-411021 PAN : AAATN4537H Vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Shweta Joshi Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 21-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01-08-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.09.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“CIT(E)”] whereby he rejected the application of the assessee filed before him on 31.03.2022 in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 847 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. He submitted that the delay is not intentional and is a bonafide one for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee as evident from the affidavit filed in support thereof and therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. 2.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.819/PUN/2025 2.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that there is substantial delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee stating the reason for such delay which are as under : “I, Rama Rauta, aged about 67 years, daughter of Siddhanath Gupta residing at B-902, Florentine, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400076 do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 1) I am the Trustee of National Women's Organisation Pune having its registered office situated at B-16, Shanti Vihar, Vigyan Nagar, Sr. No. 19/5, Bavdhan Khurd-411021. 2) This affidavit is made in support of our application for condonation for the delay submission of Appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was due on November 29, 2022. 3) We have filed the application before the learned CIT, Exemption, Pune; for permanent registration u/s 12A of the Act, which was rejected on September 30, 2022. The due date to file the Appeal against the said Order before the Tribunai was November 28, 2022. However, by relying on the opinion given by the Consultant, we have filed application for the provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act on November 22. 2022. 4) The Assessing Officer while completing the Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23 framed the order on February 28, 2024 and in respect of the Assessment Year 2023-24 order framed under section 143(3) of the Act dated February 20, 2025, rejected the claim stating that the Trust is not having a valid registration. 5) After noticing the rejections of the claim, the new consultant was appointed to review and manage all income tax related matters. 6) As suggested by the new consultant, we preferred this Appeal with the Income tax Appellate Tribunal against the said order for rejection of the 12А Application. We had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the Appeal. 7) The delay in filing the Appeal is due to misguidance of the consultant appointed by the Trust and the bona fide mistaken belief of the Appellant that the approval under section 12A of the Act is already granted. 2.3 In light of the above reason stated by the assessee in his affidavit, we find some merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. 2.4 We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.819/PUN/2025 claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 2.5 We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.” 2.6 Considering the totality of facts and in the circumstances of the case set out above and respectfully following the above decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT, Exemption; erred in law and on facts in not granting registration u/s 12A of the Act to the Appellant on the analogy that genuineness of the activities of the Appellant is not satisfactory. 2. The learned CIT, Exemption erred in stating that the Trustee is unable to furnish credible evidence without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3. The learned CIT, Exemption erred in law and on the facts in not getting sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to submit all the requisite details/information and hence natural justice was not served. 4. Rejection of the application of registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts and circumstances constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, which require a reasonable hearing and due process. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.” 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on receipt of the assessee’s application filed in Form No. 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act along with annexures thereto, with a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.819/PUN/2025 force, the Ld. CIT(E) issued notice on 29.07.2022 through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification contained therein by 12.08.2022 followed by another notice issued on 17.09.2022 seeking compliance by 23.09.2022. The said notices were duly served on the assessee through the e-portal/ email. The assessee was specifically requested vide the initial notice to furnish the details of activities carried out during the last 3 years or since inception whichever is later along with supporting credible evidence. In response thereto, the assessee submitted its reply on 10.08.2022 and 19.09.2022. On verification of the same, the Ld. CIT(E) observed that the main activity of the assessee trust is Save Ganga. Further, he observed that there appears to be no activity going on since substantial period of time and that prima facie the trust appears to be defunct and in dormant phase since long time. Due to lack of any credible evidence, the Ld. CIT(E) having been unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust, proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has a valid provisional registration under section 12A of the Act, a copy of which has been placed on record. He submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee for regular registration for the reason that the assessee was not carrying out any activity at the relevant time. He, however, submitted that the circumstance prevailing at the relevant time were beyond the control of the assessee as it was a period falling under Covid-19 pandemic. The assessee was unable to receive donations due to which its programs could not be run as per its objectives. He also submitted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the Ld. CIT(E) to present and substantiate its case. He, therefore prayed that in the interest of justice an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate and present its case by furnishing all the details/ documents sought for by the Ld. CIT(E) to his satisfaction. Accordingly, the matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.819/PUN/2025 adjudicate the same afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The Ld. DR had no objection the above request of the Ld. AR. 8. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the records and the paper book filed by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. We find that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application due to lack of credible supporting evidence proving the genuineness of the charitable activities of the assessee trust as well as for the reason that no charitable activities were conducted by the assessee at the relevant time. Admittedly, the assessee trust is an old trust formed in 1997 and has been registered under section 12A of the Act from 22.10.1999. It is continuously engaged in carrying out the charitable activities as per the objectives of the trust. It is only due to certain force majeure circumstances prevailing at the relevant time i.e. Covid 19 Pandemic period, on account of which there was a temporary slowdown in the activities run by the assessee trust. The assessee trust also holds a valid certificate for provisional registration under section 12A of the Act. The Paper Book filed by the Ld. DR demonstrates that the assessee has submitted certain information/details/documents sought for by the Ld. CIT(E) which were available on his records but have not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. The Ld. AR has pleaded before us that adequate opportunity was not provided by the Ld. CIT(E) to the assessee to present and substantiate its case and that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to explain and substantiate its case by filing all the requisite details/ documents as may be sought by the Ld. CIT(E). 9. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, we are of the view that it would be judicially expedient and in the interest of justice and fair play, if the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to consider the assessee’s application afresh and decide the same on merits, in accordance with fact and law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and present its case. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant details/documentary evidence as may be required/called upon on the Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.819/PUN/2025 appointed date without seeking adjournment under any pretext unless required for sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We direct and order accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 01st August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Borad) (Astha Chandra) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 01st August, 2025. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "