SHIKSHAK BHARATI ,MUMBAI V. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 731/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shikshak Bharati, a trust, appealing against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), who rejected their application for registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on incomplete documentation and non-compliance with subsequent information requests. The tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to miscommunication and not intentional, leading to the decision to condone the delay and remand the case for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314100 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH SAREEN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUJAY WAIKUL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.731/MUM/2025 (A.Y. NA) Shikshak Bharati, A-702, Vedant Plot No. 18-19, Goregaon, Mumbai –400 062, Maharashtra v/s. बनाम Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Income Tax Office, Room No. 601, 6th Floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai– 400026, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAQTS8411B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Sujay Waikul, AR Respondent by : Shri Manish Sareen (CIT DR) Date of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal emanates from the order dated 15.10.2024 as passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] u/s. 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the application for non- submission of documents. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 731/Mum/2025 A.Y. - NA Shikshak Bharati Mumbai 2. The learned assessing officer did not give sufficient time to reply and submit the details after the notice dated 05.10.2024 and passed the rejection order on 15.10.2024 3. At the outset, it was informed by the Registry that the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 40 days. In this regard, a request has been made by the trustee Sri Ashok Belsare for the assessee Trust for condonation of the delay in an affidavit. It is submitted that the application in Form 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iv) seeking registration under section 12AB of Act on 18.04.2024.Later, additional information was sought on 16.08.2024 which was submitted on 04.09.2024. After going through the submissions, further information was sought vide notice dated 05.10.2024. Form 10AD dated 15.10.2024 rejecting the said application was issued by the officer, after only 10 days from the second notice, which was communicated to the undersigned in the email, but he missed noticing and was unaware of any such order nor did the Chartered Accountant had any indication of the same. However, it was only recently that he noticed that the order has been passed for non-compliance. There is a delay in filing of the appeal but there was no deliberate attempt not to file the appeal which was filed as soon as he came to know about the order. 4. On careful consideration of the above submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was P a g e | 3 ITA No. 731/Mum/2025 A.Y. - NA Shikshak Bharati Mumbai not intentional but due to certain mis-communication only. Such a bonafide lapse needs to be condoned in the interest of justice. In this connection reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late……..Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated….Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” Accordingly, we condone the delay and take up the appeal for adjudication. 5. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee Trust sought registration u/s 12AB of the Act. On verification of its application in Form 10AB filed by the assessee, it was noticed by the ld.CIT(E) that the application was not complete and all the documents required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a notice was P a g e | 4 ITA No. 731/Mum/2025 A.Y. - NA Shikshak Bharati Mumbai issued to the it requesting to furnish the complete set of documents mentioned in Rule 17A(2). In response the assessee made certain submissions. Further information was sought which the assessee did not comply. It is stated that registration under section 12AB is to be granted in terms of the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act after being satisfied about the objects of the trust or institution, the genuineness of activities, and the compliance of any other law for the time being in force as are material for the purposes of achieving its objects. In the absence of necessary compliance by the applicant, he was unable to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on these parameters. Consequently, the application was rejected. 6. It is observed from the impugned order that the ld.CIT(E) rejected its application on the ground of part compliance and also due to time barring constraints. He could not adjudicate the issues involved. It is equally true that it is the fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the proceedings and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities. 6.1 We are of the considered view that the scales of justice demand that the matter should be revisited at the level of ld. CIT(E). The bench proposed restoration of the issue to the him. Both the sides agreed to this proposal in the interest of justice and fairplay. P a g e | 5 ITA No. 731/Mum/2025 A.Y. - NA Shikshak Bharati Mumbai Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to him for de novo adjudication while applying the principles of natural justice after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- AMIT SHUKLA PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक /Date 05.05.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अयिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "