PARMARTH TRUST,SURAT V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 636/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Parmarth Trust appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, which had rejected their application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The rejection was initially due to non-compliance with notices, as the consultant engaged by the Trust was preoccupied with other tax-related work. The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the Trust's lack of awareness about the rejection of their application until a substantial delay had occurred. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay and restore the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for reconsideration, imposing a cost on the Trust to emphasize the importance of compliance and representation in tax matters.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24816 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Section 12A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT K.TAJA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 636/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Parmarth Trust, 43, Royal Park Society, Sumul Dairy Road, Surat-395008 Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAFTP0343Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rohit K. Taja, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR Date of Hearing 25.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), (in short “Ld. CIT(E)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 23.08.2023. 2. In this case, we observe that the present appeal is time barred by 221 days. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that the President of the applicant trust was not well-versed with income tax proceedings and accordingly, he engaged a tax consultant for filing application for registration under Section 12A of the Act. Admittedly, certain details were called for by the Ld. CIT(E), however, since the consultant of the assessee / applicant trust ITA No.636/Srt/2024 Parmarth Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 2– was preoccupied with return filing activities and tax audit work, he could not file timely response to notices issued by Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, it was for this reason that the assessee / applicant trust could not make adequate representation and application of the assessee / applicant trust was rejected. Further, it was stated that it was only with a substantial delay that the assessee / applicant trust came to know about the rejection of his application by Ld. CIT(E), for the impugned assessment year, that caused an inadvertent delay in filing of the present appeal. 3. On going through the Affidavit filed by the assessee / applicant trust, the delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E), since due to the mistake of the consultant appointed by the assessee / applicant trust, the assessee / applicant trust could not make adequate representation before Ld. CIT(E). 5. On going through the facts of the instant case, we observe that admittedly, it was on account of the inadvertence of the consultant of the assessee / applicant trust that the application of the assessee was rejected by Ld. CIT(E), in absence of details having been furnished. We observe that the Counsel for the assessee has not given any cogent reason for non- appearance and has shifted the entire onus on the tax consultant appointed by him. In our view, evidently there has been non-compliance to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(E). However, in the interest of justice the matter ITA No.636/Srt/2024 Parmarth Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 3– is hereby restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 27/03/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/03/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत/ ITAT, Surat 1. Date of dictation 27.03.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 27.03.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 27.03.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .03.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S .03.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk .03.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… "