Shri 1008 Neminath Digamber Jain Samiti V. Union of India & Ors.

W.P.(C)/11125/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Shri 1008 Neminath Digamber Jain Samiti, the petitioner, who challenged the rejection of their application for registration under sections 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application was initially filed physically on 05.03.2018, which was later rejected on the grounds that it was not submitted electronically, despite being processed and entertained by the respondents initially. The court found that the prescribed electronic form was not available at the time of filing, and the petitioner was not informed that the physical submission was unacceptable until the rejection in September 2018. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the procedural impropriety in rejecting the application without prior notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802085 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIVEKANAND MISHRA; ABHISHEK MARATHA
• Assessee Lawyers: KUMAR SAMEER
• Keywords: Application rejection; Electronic Filing; Income Tax; Physical filing
• Section: 12AA; 80G

Judgement Text

" W.P.(C)No.11125/2018 Page 1 of 3 $~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 21.08.2023 + W.P.(C) 11125/2018 SHRI 1008 NEMINATH DIGAMBER JAIN SAMITI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kumar Sameer, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Vivekanand Mishra, Adv. for R-1/UOI. Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): 1. This writ petition seeks to impugn communication dated 20.09.2018, wherein the petitioner/assessee’s application preferred under section 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) was rejected. 2. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the principal reason for rejecting the application was that it had been submitted physically, and not electronically. 2.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioner/assessee had filed the application physically on 05.03.2018. The said application was entertained by the respondents/revenue, and processed further. 2.2 This is evident from a perusal of communication dated 05.03.2018 which emanated from the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (E). A perusal of this communication shows that petitioner’s /assessee’s application, which was filed physically in the prescribed form, i.e. 10A, was Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:13.09.2023 14:30:44 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C)No.11125/2018 Page 2 of 3 perused and the petitioner/assessee was called upon to appear before the concerned officer on 05.04.2018 at 10:30 a.m./03:00 p.m., along with the documents referred to therein. 2.3 The record also shows that the petitioner/assessee did file the documents sought by the respondents/revenue under the cover of a letter, which was received by the office of concerned authority on 20.08.2018. 3. Besides the aforesaid letter, the petitioner filed yet another letter in support of his application, which was received by the office of the concerned authority on 07.09.2018. 4. As a matter of fact, the concerned respondents/revenue also received a request made on behalf of the Chartered Accountants of the petitioner/assessee to adjourn the date of hearing that had been fixed, i.e., 05.04.2018. 5. All this would show that, up until the impugned order was passed, i.e., on 20.09.2018, the petitioner/assessee was not put to notice that its application was not sustainable for the reason that it had been filed physically. 6. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the respondents/revenue’s counter affidavit does demonstrate that Form 10A in the electronic form was deployed in the e-filing system only on 14.03.2018. The argument advanced on behalf of petitioner/assessee is that at the point in time when the subject application was filed, i.e., 05.03.2018, the prescribed form was not available in electronic mode. It is thus submitted that, had the respondents/revenue informed the petitioner/assessee at the very outset that the application in physical form cannot be accepted, the petitioner/assessee would have taken corrective measure at that juncture. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:13.09.2023 14:30:44 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C)No.11125/2018 Page 3 of 3 7. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue on the other hand, says that the petitioner/assessee should have, on its own, taken corrective measures and moved the application electronically. 8. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept Mr. Maratha’s submission for the reason that until 05.03.2018 and thereafter, the Petitioner/assessee’s application was firstly entertained and processed, and then documents in support of the application were sought, which were supplied by the petitioner-assessee. It was only in September, 2018 that the impugned communication was issued to the petitioner/assessee. 9. Besides this, on the date when the petitioner/assessee had filed the subject application physically, the prescribed form i.e., Form 10 A, was not available in electronic mode. The petitioner/assessee, in any case, till that date could not have taken recourse to electronic mode. 10. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to allow the writ petition. 10.1 It is ordered accordingly. 11. The impugned letter is set aside. The respondent/revenue will accordingly, pass consequential orders on merits qua the subject application. 12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 21, 2023/sm Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:13.09.2023 14:30:44 Signature Not Verified "