RATNATRAY FOUNDATION,NASHIK V. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 1627/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ratnatray Foundation, a trust, which appealed against the rejection of its applications for regular registration under section 12AB(1)(b)(i) and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(Exemption), Pune. The appeals were initially delayed, but the Tribunal found 'reasonable cause' for the delay and considered the substantive issues. The CIT(Exemption) had rejected the applications due to non-compliance with a second notice requesting clarification on the trust's activities, which the trust failed to respond to. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of justice, decided to set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s orders and remand the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775809 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT BOBDE
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPA KHARE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 12A; 80G

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1628 and 1627/PUN/2025 Ratnatray Foundation, Plot No. 10, Gajapanth Housing Society, Dindori Road, Mhasrul, Nashik 422004, Maharashtra PAN: AAETR5291C Vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are against the rejection of applications for regular registration u/s.12AB(1)(b)(i) and approval u/s.80G of the Act respectively framed by CIT(E), Pune dated 15.04.2024. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 27 days and 372 days respectively in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavits, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee would not have gained from filing the appeals with a delay. We therefore in light of Appellant by : Smt Deepa Khare Respondent by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1628 and 1627/PUN/2025 Ratnatray Foundation 2 judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a trust, filed application in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) for grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Act on 27.10.2023. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant trust, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a notice dt. 16.01.2024 through ITBA portal calling upon the appellant trust to file certain information/clarification. Assessee furnished the requisite details. Thereafter, ld.CIT(E) issued another notice dated 03.04.2024 communicating the discrepancies in the information so filed. There was no compliance from the side of the appellant to the said notice issued by ld.CIT(E). In the circumstances, the ld. CIT(Exemption) rejected the application filed for grant of regular registration. Similar is the fate of application for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant trust has approached this Tribunal assailing the impugned orders. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not make proper compliance to the second notice(s) issued by ld.CIT(E) for the reasons beyond control of the assessee. A prayer is made to provide one more opportunity by remitting the issues. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1628 and 1627/PUN/2025 Ratnatray Foundation 3 7. Ld. DR relying on the order of ld. CIT(Exemption) submitted that appellant failed to avail the ample opportunities provided to it. Therefore, ld. CIT (Exemption) had rightly rejected the applications filed by the appellant trust. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record placed before us. Appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of application for grant of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the appellant failed to make compliance before ld.CIT(E) for the second notice substantiating the charitable activities carried by it due to which the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the appellant for regular registration u/s 12A and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier. The appellant’s application for grant of approval u/s.80G has also been rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on the similar grounds. 9. Vide grounds of appeal, the appellant claimed that eventhough the relevant information has been furnished in response to first notice, ld.CIT(E) without taking cognizance of the same and without providing proper opportunity summarily rejected the application for grant of regular registration. 10. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it proper, to set aside the impugned order(s) of the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the issue(s) to the file of ld.CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the appellant to explain and substantiate its case by filing the requisite details as may be required/ called upon and decide both the applications of the appellant u/s.12A and 80G of the Act afresh in accordance with law. Appellant is also hereby Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1628 and 1627/PUN/2025 Ratnatray Foundation 4 directed to remain vigilant and make its submissions on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order(s) as per law. Grounds raised by the appellant in both the appeals are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 09th day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 09th September, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "