SHRI ANAVAL VIBHAG SARVAJANIK SMASHAN GRUH,SURAT V. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1766/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Anaval Vibhag Sarvajanik Smashan Gruh, a trust, appealing against the decision 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 the trust's failure to respond to notices, which were sent to an incorrect email address not belonging to the trust. The tribunal found that the trust was not at fault for the non-receipt of the notices and thus restored the case for re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24965 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Section 12A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RITESH PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1766/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Shri Anaval Vibhag Sarvajanik Smashan Gruh, Anaval, Mahuva, Surat, Gujarat-396510 Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAXTS6275Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2025 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 15.05.2024. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by CIT (Exemption) is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting application for registration by observing that there is non-compliance ignoring fact that notices and order issued on email id which was not belong to appellant trust. 3. The Appellant prays that the order was served on email id which was not belonging to appellant and accordingly, the same may be set aside for readjudication.” 3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 86 days. The assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay vide Affidavit ITA No. 1766/Ahd/2024 Shri Anaval Vibhag Sarvajanik Smashan Gruh vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 2– dated 11.02.2025, wherein the assessee stated that the notices were issued to the assessee trust on an email id which did not belong to the assessee trust. Thereafter, the assessee approached a new consultant and came to know about the rejection order. It was as a result of aforesaid reasons that there was a delay of 86 days in filing of the present appeal. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no mala fide intention in delay in the filing of the present appeal and hence the same may be kindly condoned. 4. Looking into the instant facts and the reasons cited by the assessee for the delay of 86 days in the filing of the present appeal, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee / applicant trust filed application for registration under Section 12A of the Act in Form 10AB on 27.11.2023. Ld. CIT(E) issued two notices on 19.03.2024 and 04.04.2024, in response to which the applicant failed to furnish any response. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(E) dismissed the application for registration under Section 12A of the Act with the following observations: “10. As discussed above, the applicant/assessee has failed to file documentary evidences to enable me to satisfy about: i. Genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution. ii. That the activities of trust or institution are in consonance with the objects of the trust or institution. iii. That other laws material for the purpose of achieving objects are complied with. ITA No. 1766/Ahd/2024 Shri Anaval Vibhag Sarvajanik Smashan Gruh vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 3– 11. In view of the above, the present application filed in Form No.10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act is rejected and provisional registration stands cancelled.” 6. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that email on which notices were issued to the assessee / applicant trust did not belong either to the assessee / applicant trust or to any of the trustees. The assessee / applicant trust also attached for our perusal screen shorts of the portal which shows the email id on which notices were issued by Ld. CIT(E). Before us, it was submitted that evidently, this email id does not belong either to the applicant trust or any of the trustees of the applicant trust. It was for the aforesaid reasons that the assessee / applicant trust could not cause appearance before Ld. CIT(E) and could not furnish the necessary documents as called for. For the aforesaid reasons, it was only after a lapse of substantial time that the applicant trust came to know about the rejection order passed by Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application for grant of registration of the assessee / applicant trust, thereby causing delay in filing of present appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal. Accordingly, it was submitted before us that it was due to bonafide reasons that the assessee / applicant trust could not cause appearance before Ld. CIT(E). 7. On going through the facts of the case, in the interest of justice, the matter is hereby restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E), with a direction that notices be issued at the correct email address as provided in Form No. 10AB and the matter be heard afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee / applicant trust. ITA No. 1766/Ahd/2024 Shri Anaval Vibhag Sarvajanik Smashan Gruh vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 4– 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee / applicant trust is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 12/03/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 12/03/2025 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, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 10.03.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 11.03.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 11.03.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 12.03.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 12.03.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 12.03.2025 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…………………………………… "