SAMASTA BRAHMAN MAHASANGH,MUMBAI V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION0, MUMBAI

ITA 1042/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Samasta Brahman Mahasangh, a trust, appealed against the orders of the CIT(E) which rejected their applications for registration under section 12AB and for exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were initially delayed by 536 days due to the trust's clerk inadvertently failing to inform the trustees about the CIT(E)'s decisions. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay credible, considering the age and unfamiliarity with digital communication of the trustees, and thus condoned the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the genuine activities of the trust and its regular compliance with income tax returns, deciding to remit the case back to the CIT(E) for a decision on the substantive issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32243 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.A. DHYANI
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAY MODI
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai. Before Smt. Beena Pilla (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 1042/MUM/2025 ITA No. 1043/MUM/2025 Samasta Brahman Mahasangh 201, Navratan Building P.D. Mello Road Mumbai-400 077. Vs. The CIT(E) Room No. 601 Cumball Hill MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai. PAN : AACTS2388B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Akshay Modi Revenue by : Shri R.A. Dhyani Date of Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 26/03/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above captioned appeals, the appellant-trust has filed appeals against the order passed by Ld. CIT(E) ex parte by rejecting petitions relating to granting of registration under section 12AB and granting of exemption under section 80G of the I.T. Act. 2. From the order of Ld. CIT(E), it is observed that with regard to application in Form No. 10AB for Registration of the Trust under section 12AB of the Act and Form No.10AD of the Act relating to approval under section 80G of the Act were rejected by Ld. CIT(E) because certain clarifications were required to grant of registration under section 12AB and grant of exemption under section 80G of the Act. The appellant has not filed applications with full details and also documents required to accompanied were also not furnished even though notices and reminders were also issued by Ld. CIT(E). In view of the same, Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the applications for grant of approval under section 12AB and section 80G of the Act vide two separate orders mentioned above. Aggrieved by the orders of Ld. CIT(E), Samasta Brahman Mahasangh 2 appellant filed appeals before the ITAT with delay of 536 days stating that the appellant trust request that the delay may be condoned and grant for one more opportunity to the appellant trust so that the trust can present its case before Ld. CIT(E) without taking any further adjournment. Ld. AR of the appellant has filed applications as well as evidence evidences stating reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The crux of the application/evidence is that the clerk-incharge of the trust has downloaded the order of Ld. CIT(E) at registered email and kept it for himself without handing over the orders to the Trustee. When Board of Trustees have asked the clerk-incharge of the Trust about the status of the registration of the trust as well as approval under section 80G of the Act, the concerned clerk admitted his inadvertent mistake of not informing the Trustees about the orders passed by Ld. CIT(E). To this extent, notarized affidavit was filed by the clerk, who is incharge of the Trust as well as the Trustee of this Trust. It was also mentioned that the trustees are very old people and not conversant with email computerized and as such they dependent upon the clerk who did not properly appraise them legal position. The Board of Trustees came to know about the same, an advocate was engaged to file an appeal, immediately. 3. Ld. AR of the appellant further pleaded that this is a very small trust which is being run by the old people for a very long time and therefore the activities are quite genuine and returns of income were also filed regularly in time. In view of the same, it was pleaded by the Ld. AR of the appellant that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be remitted back to Ld. CIT(E) with regard to granting of registration under section 12AB as well as granting of exemption under section 80G of the Act. Ld. AR has also stated that they will not take any adjournment and file all required particulars before Ld. CIT(E). 4. Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. CIT(E) and opposed condonation of dely. Samasta Brahman Mahasangh 3 5. After hearing rival submissions, it is decided to condone the delay, because the Trust is a very old one and as the objects were genuine and returns of income were regularly filed coupled with the facts that the trustees were aged people who are not conversant with the email communication and remit the file back to Ld. CIT(E) to decide the issues of registration and exemption on merits. The appellant trust is directed not to ask for further adjournment and necessary documents and evidences may be furnished to get approval under section 12AB and exemption under section 80G of the Act. 6. Both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 26/03/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PS "