NAVODIT SAMAJ SEVI SANSTHA CHARAMA,KANKER V. ITO WARD JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

ITA 304/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha, a charitable society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal, rejecting their application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The initial rejection was based on the grounds of incomplete submissions. The ITAT found that the Commissioner had not considered all the documents submitted by the assessee and had not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which are essential principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107983 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.L.ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDHHARTH PARAKH; SAKSHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 254(2); 11; 12A; 12

Judgement Text

"आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵीरिवशसूद, Ɋाियक सद˟एवंŵीअŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟क ेसमƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 304/RPR/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊAssessment Year: 2023-24) Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha, C/o Harish Chandra Kange, Village / Post - Kurrutola, Tehsil - Charama, B.O. Kurrutola, Kanker, 494337, C.G. India V s ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur, CG-494001 PAN: AAAAN6178P (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरतीकीओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Sidhharth Parakh & Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CA’s राजˢकीओरसे /Revenue by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date ofPronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per ArunKhodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [in short “Ld. CIT(E)”], dated 19.02.2024, rejecting the application of assessee filed in Form No. 10AB for granting of registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are extracted as under: 1. That on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal has erred in rejecting the application for registration on the basis that the Appellant has not submitted the requisite details and filed incomplete details despite of the fact that the appellant has submitted the requisite details such as certified copy of registration certificate, certified copy of trust deed, copy of ITR along with computation of income, copy of Audit Report, copy of report of activities undertaken by the trust during last 3 years. 2. That on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal has erred in passing non speaking order without appraising the information submitted by the appellant. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal has rejected the application for registration without giving proper/reasonable opportunity of being heard and thus violating the law of natural justice. 4. That, assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground/grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Briefly stated, assessee is a charitable society engaged in organizing various awareness program in villages, education, preservation of environment (including water shades, forests and wildlife), preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest and advancement of any other object of general public utility. The assessee had applied for granting of registration u/s 12AB in the prescribed Form No. 10AB of the Act before the Ld. CIT(E), however, the application of assessee 3 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur was rejected vide order dated 19.02.2024, therefore, being aggrieved with the said order, the assessee had filed the present appeal. 4. This appeal was earlier heard by us on 04.09.2024, and disposed of vide order dated 20.09.2024. The appeal of assessee was dismissed as not maintainable on account of filing of the appeal belatedly after the prescribed time of 6 months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, as per provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. 5. The order of ITAT dated 20.09.2024 thereafter, was challenged by the assessee before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Chhattisgarh, which was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court with the decision that delay of 55 days in preferring the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal is condoned and directed to restore the appeal at its original number before the ITAT. It is further directing that the matter is remitted to the ITAT for considering and deciding the appeal afresh on merits within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of Hon’ble High Court. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court vide order bearing Number-Taxc No. 225/2024, dated 29.12.2024, while remitting the matter back to ITAT, Raipur, are extracted as under: 4 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur 22. A conspectus of the aforesaid judgments noticed herein-above (supra) would show that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly indicated that a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay construing sufficient cause has to be adopted and appeal has to be decided on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. \"Sufficient cause\" within the meaning of Section 253(5) of the IT Act has to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice especially when the delay is not deliberate and outcome of mala fide. 23. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in the present case, appeal preferred by the appellant Society was delayed by 55 days, as noticed above, for which cause much less sufficient cause has to be shown and the appellant has explained that on account of wrong advise of his counsel to reapply for registration, he had firstly preferred application afresh under Section 12A of the IT Act for registration and thereafter, due to delay in deciding the second application for registration and realising the mistake, he preferred appeal with a delay of 55 days, that is how the delay in filing the appeal has taken place. This fact remained uncontroverted, as no counter-affidavit controverting the facts stated and cause shown for not preferring the appeal right within the period of limitation was filed by the Revenue. As such, the cause shown for delay in filing the application supported by affidavit remains uncontroverted and it would constitute \"sufficient cause\" within the meaning of Section 253(5) of the IT Act. The rejection of application for condonation of delay has serious civil consequences upon the status of the Society, as by rejection of the application of the appellant Society, the Society would not be able to claim tax exemption under the provisions contained in Sections 11 & 12 of the IT Act, and that too in absence of counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue 5 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur opposing theapplication for condonation of delay supported by affidavit. The ITAT ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing the appeal is mala fide or it is deliberate, rather it is bona fide based on wrong advise of his counsel to reapply for registration. 24. In that view of the matter, the order impugned dated 20-9-2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITA No.304/RPR/2024 is set aside and delay of 55 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. The appeal is restored to its original number to the file of the ITAT. The matter is remitted to the ITAT for considering and deciding the appeal afresh on merits within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the instant case vide their order dated 09.12.2024, as the copy of judgment was received on 04.02.2025, the matter was fixed for hearing on 19.02.2025. 7. On the date of hearing i.e., dated 19.02.2025, Shri Siddharth Parakh, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the assessee (in short “Ld. AR”), submitted that in the present case, the assessee had applied in Form No. 10AB for granting of registration u/s 12AB before the Ld. CIT(E), Bhopal, 6 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur having jurisdiction over the case of assessee, however the application of assessee was rejected on account of incomplete submissions by the assessee. To rebut towards the aforesaid findings, Ld. AR drew our attention to the observations of Ld. CIT(E), the same are culled out here under for the sake of clarity and completeness of facts: The assessee has applied in Form 10AB for registration u/s 12AB of the Act, under the new provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, opportunity letters were issued to the assessee and various documents/details were called for; to process the said application and to verify the objects and activities of the assessee. The details of opportunity letters and response received in compliance thereof are as under; S. N. In respect of registration u/s 12AB Date of opportunity letters issued Hearing fixed on Date of reply 1. 04.12.2023 22.12.2023 No Reply Received 2. 30.12.2023 16.01.2023 Adjournment filed 3. 23.01.2024 31.01.2024 Incomplete reply received Vide above referred letters various documents/information were called for. In response to the notice dated 04.12.2023 & 30.12.2023 assessee has not submitted its reply. Further assessee has filed adjournment letter only. The assessee request for adjournment was considered. Subsequently, notice was issued on 23.01.2024 for compliance of the complete reply of earlier notice dated 04.12.2023. In response to the notice dated 23.01.2024 assessee has submitted incomplete reply only. After providing several opportunities 7 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur the assessee has not submitted donation details, complete reply as per notice, Registered by laws and other details, etc. 2. In view of the above, due to non-compliance of required documents/information filed by the assessee, the application of the assessee in Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act is hereby rejected and the provisional registration/approval u/s 12AB in Form 10 AC vide AAAAN6178PE20221 dated 09.12.2022 granted by CPC is also hereby cancelled as per the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the IT Act. 8. After reiterating the facts of case and aforesaid reasons for rejections by the Ld. CIT(E), Ld. AR pointed out a mistake in the order of Ld. CIT(E) that regarding opportunity letter dated 30.12.2023, through which the assessee was communicated that the next hearing was fixed on 16.01.2024, the assessee have submitted an adjournment application seeking further time along with various documents, however, Ld. CIT(E) had only referred about adjournment application but have missed the exhaustive submissions furnished by the assessee. In order to substantiate such factual contention, Ld. AR drew our attention to the response furnished before the Ld. CIT(E) on 16.01.2024 placed before us at page no. 40-43 of the assessee’s paper book. On perusal of the said e-proceedings response acknowledgement bearing no. 9025538411601224 & 903113921160124 both dated 16.01.2024, we find that the assessee had submitted various 8 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur documents attached with the said response along with request to adjourn the matter for final hearing after 15 days. The copy of both the e-response furnished by the assessee on 16.01.2024 are extracted hereunder for clarity and information. 9 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur 10 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur 11 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur 9. Based on the aforesaid submission, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that as the assessee had submitted the necessary documents (except few more documents for which the time was requested) before the Ld. CIT(E), which were not referred to by Ld. CIT(E) in his order. It seems that all such substantial facts are not considered by Ld. CIT(E), while rejecting the application of the assessee. It was further submitted that another final opportunity notice dated 23.01.2024 was issued by the Ld. CIT(E) in compliance to which all the remaining documents were furnished by the assessee on 29.01.2024, the same are placed at page no. 73-74 of the 12 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur assessee’s paper book. Based on aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was prayer by Ld. AR that substantial documents furnished by the assessee are not referred to by the Ld. CIT(E) or it can be presumed that the same are not considered by the Ld. CIT(E), while rejecting the application of the assessee, only on the misconceived belief that the assessee’s submission are incomplete. Backed by the aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR prayed that the matter in all fairness, in the interest of justice, may be referred to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to revisit the application of the assessee and to consider all the documents furnished by the assessee before him, thereafter, may decide the eligibility of the assessee society for grant of registration u/s 12AB, on merits. 10. Per contra, Shri S. L. Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT(E). 11. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record. It is evident that the assessee had furnished various documents on 16.01.2024, which are not considered by the Ld. CIT(E) and have inferred that the assessee had not furnished complete documents or reply without specifying in his order as to how the reply of assessee was incomplete. On perusal of order of Ld. CIT(E), it can be gathered that Ld. 13 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur CIT(E) was under belief that the assessee had not submitted any response towards notices dated 14.12.2023 and 13.12.2023, whereas as per facts on record in the form of e-response acknowledgement furnished by the assessee (extracted supra) before us, we find that various documents are furnished by the assessee on 16.01.2024, which apparently are not considered by the sanctioning authority. In view of such facts and circumstances, we find that the order of Ld. CIT(E) is suffering with the factual error that there was no response by the assessee toward notice dated 30.12.2023, whereas in response / compliance certain documents were furnished by the assessee on 16.01.2024, non-consideration of such documents by the Ld. CIT(E), may be on account of inadvertence, is not in conformity with the mandate of law. Also, before rejecting the application of assessee, the assessee was not confronted with such inference by the Ld. CIT(E), is a violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, we deem it feet to restore this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to revisit the application of the assessee and dispose of the same in accordance with the mandate of law. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the set aside proceedings. 12. In result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 304/RPR/2024 is partly allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observation. 14 ITA No.304/RPR/2024 NavoditSamajSeviSanstha, Charama vs ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur Order pronounced in the open court on 28/02/2025. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियकसद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 28/02/2025 VaibhavShrivastav आदेशकीŮितिलिपअŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant- Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent- ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊफाईल / Guard file. // सȑािपत Ůित True copy // "