ST. THOMAS SYRO MALABAR CATHOLIC CHURCH,KOLKATA V. CIT (EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

ITA 1567/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church appealing against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata, which had rejected their application for registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2023-24. The Church argued that the rejection was based on an inadvertent filing of Form 10AB for the wrong assessment year. The Tribunal found merit in the Church's arguments, noting that the Church had been previously granted provisional registration and was eligible for a five-year registration period under the amended section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents that emphasized the need for parties to have knowledge or notice of an order to avoid losing legal rights.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822320 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT, DIT(E) vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, Pawan Kumar Jain vs. DCIT, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT, PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd., Sawansukha foundation Vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANAT KUMAR RAHA; CORRECT DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TULSIAN
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12AA; 12A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.1567/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church, 1/1, Banamali Ghosal Lane, Kolkata-700034, West Bengal Vs. CIT (Exemption) Office of Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Income Tax Department, 10-B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AARTS8194G Assessee by : Shri SK Tulsian, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 01.12.2025 Date of pronouncement: 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(E)”] dated 11.09.2023. 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the is barred by limitation by 615 days, for which the assessee filed condonation petition along with an affidavit, which read as under:- “1. That St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church started activities from August, 2016 is a trust and holding exemption certificate u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act dated 03.10.2019 and provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act uptill A.Y. 2023-24. The trust is created for charitable purposes with the objectives to provide relief to the poor, education, medical relief, preservation of nature and advancement of any other object of public utility. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 1567/KOL/2025 St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church; A.Y. 2023-24 2. That an appeal before the Hon'ble I.T.A.T., Kolkata has been filed on 18/07/2025 challenging rejection of application for Registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act vide ex parte order of Ld. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata dated 11/09/2023 and if the said order date is taken as service date, there has been an unintended delay of 615 days beyond the prescribed due date in filing this appeal for the following bona fide reasons. 3. That the entire income-tax matter through e-proceeding and e-communication with the department on behalf of the Church (Trust) used to independently attend/look after by a Chartered Accountant and hence he was having access over the ITBA Portal and e-mail of the Church. The papers/documents in relation to income-tax matter of the Church, as and when presented for signature, used to sign by the Church authority without any glitch. 4. That for the said bona fide reason, the Trust was totally unaware about the order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) having been passed on 11/09/2023 in Form No. 10AD rejecting in limine the application for grant of Registration applied vide Form-10AB dated 05/03/2023. The Trust, therefore, did not get proper advice at the right time, which has caused unintended delay in taking proper advice and subsequent appropriate action in the matter 5.That a letter dated 17/06/2025 addressed to the Ld. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata in response to his notice dated 13.06.2025 for registration for A.Y. 2025-26 was placed for signature of the President of the Church and then upon enquiry about the status of the pending registration applied for in respect of the earlier A.Y., the matter of the registration for the AF 2023-24 having already been rejected vide order dated 11/09/2023 then came to the knowledge of the authority. 6. That since the said Chartered Accountant did not give proper advice at the right time and since the appellant has filed the present appeal on taking an opinion from a senior Lawyer, the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate or for any mala fide intention and was due to unavoidable reasons. The appellant will be put to serious stress if the delay is not condoned. On the above facts, therefore, a liberal approach in condoning the said delay of 615 days should be given in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR. 471 (SC). 7. That the Hon'ble Apex Court in another case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT, (2019) 419 ITR 732 (SC), observed that the appellant asserted that he had no knowledge about the order passed on 29.12.2003 till he came to know of the auction of the property in June, 2008. It was thus held that indulgence should have been shown to the appeal by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 8. That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, (2013) 213 Taxman 65 (Del) has condoned the delay of 465 days in filing an appeal before ITAT holding that the order received by the C.A. had not been delivered to the assessee. Further, by delaying proceeding the assessee would not gain anything, nor there was prejudice to revenue by correct determination of tax liability. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 1567/KOL/2025 St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church; A.Y. 2023-24 9. That while praying before the Hon'ble Bench for condonation of unintended delay of 615 days for bona fide reasons, the appellant would rely on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain vs. DCIT, (2013) 89 DTR 33 (Mum), wherein it has been held as under: \"It is a fundamental principle of justice and fair play that parties, whose rights are affected by an order must have a knowledge or notice of it, otherwise, the legal rights to remedy is lost to the party, even when he is not at fault. Thus, the date or order, as envisaged in s.254(2) should be construed to mean the date when the order is received or communicated to either party.\" 10. That the delay of 615 days in filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble I.T.A.T., therefore, is for the good and bona fide reasons and hence it is prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be admitted for adjudication on merits to meet the ends of justice.” 2.1. The Ld. D.R did raise objections to condoning the delay on the ground that the reasons cited by the assessee are not reasonable. 2.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and , hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal. 3. At the time of hearing, the counsel of the assessee raised additional ground which is extracted as under:- “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee trust inadvertently filled From 10AB for A.Y. 2023-24 on 05.03.2023 instead of A.Y. 2024-25 for registration u/s 12A of the Act although the assessee trust was duly accorded provisional registration till A.Y. 2023-24 vide order dated 27.05.2021 and thus was no required to file Form 10AB for A.Y. 2023-24, accordingly the said Form 10AB filed by the assessee may kindly be treated as withdrawn and consequent order in Form 10AD passed by the learned CIT (E), Kolkata may kindly quashed.” 3.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal and requested that Form 10AB filed by the assessee may kindly be treated as withdrawn and consequent order in Form 10AD passed by the learned CIT (E) may be quashed. In our opinion the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 1567/KOL/2025 St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church; A.Y. 2023-24 issued raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal issue qua which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further verification of facts are required from any quarter whatsoever. In our considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee was registered u/s 12AA of the Act from A.Y. 2020-21 on 03.10.2019. The assessee filed an application in form no.10A for provisional registration on 23.03.2021. The said application of the assessee was treated by the Department as application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act and thereby allowed provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act in form 10AC on 27.05.2021 from A.Y. 2021-22 to A.Y. 2023-24. The assessee filed form 10AB for A.Y. 2024-25 onwards for registration u/s 12A of the Act, since, it was already registered u/s 12A of the Act till A.Y. 2023- 24. Inadvertently the assessee again filed registration application u/s 12A of the Act for A.Y. 2023-24 on 05.03.2023. The said application was inadvertent mistake at the time of choosing the assessment year while filing the form no.10AB on 05.03.2023. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 12A of the Act was initiated by CIT (E), Kolkata and notices were issued through ITBA portal. The notices were not Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No. 1567/KOL/2025 St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church; A.Y. 2023-24 replied by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee and the ld. CIT(E) vide order in form 10AD dated 11.09.2023 rejected in limine application u/s 12A of the Act for A.Y. 2023-24. Now the assessee has raised two issues before us as under:- ““(a) Firstly, the assessee trust was already registered u/s 12AA before its amendment by Taxation and Other Laws Act 2020, therefore the assessee was required to make application in Form 10A under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) within three months from 01.04.2021 and was eligible for registration for a period of 5 Years i.e. from A.Y. 2021- 22 to 2025-26. However, the application of the assessee was treated by the department as an application u/s12A(1)(ac) (vi) and the assessee was allowed provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act in Form 10AC on 27-05-2021 from AY 2021- 22 to AY 2023-24 which was not as per law. (b) Secondly the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application filed in Form No 10AB on 05.03.2023 in limie without verifying the records that the assessee was already allowed registration for the assessment year 2023-24, therefore the assessee application in Form 10AB filed on 05.03.2023 for AY 2023-24 and its consequent order in Form 10AD dated 11.09.2023by the Ld. CIT(E) be quashed.” 4.1. So far as the first issue is concerned, we observe that the assessee is already registered before amendment by Taxation and Other Laws Act 2020 and so the assessee was eligible for registration u/s 12AB(1)(ac)vi) of the Act for a period of five years from A.Y. 2021-22 to 2025-26 as against the registration allowed for three years by ld. CIT from A.Y. 2021-22 to 2023-24. Therefore, we direct the ld. CIT (E) to allow the registration from A.Y. 2021-22 to 2025- 26. Consequently, the first issue raised in additional grounds is allowed. 4.2. So far as the second issue in additional ground is concerned, we note that the assessee inadvertently filed the form 10AB of the Act for A.Y. 2023-24 on 05.03.2023, instead of 2024-25 for registration of 12A of the Act. Although, it was not required to do so as it was duly accorded provisional registration till A.Y. 2023-24 vide order Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No. 1567/KOL/2025 St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church; A.Y. 2023-24 dated 27.05.2021. The assessee has prayed before us that the said form 10AB filed by the assessee dated 05.03.2023, may be allowed to be withdrawn and quash the consequent order in form 10AD passed by CIT (E) on 11.09.2023. We note that due to this mistake of the assessee in choosing the assessment year in drop down menu while filing the form no.10AB of the Act on 05.03.2023, the assessee is debarred from claiming exemption u/s 12A of the Act for A.Y. 2023-24, which the assessee otherwise eligible to claim by virtue of form 10AC of the Act dated 27.05.2021, which accorded provisional registration from A.Y. 2021-22 to 2023-24. 4.3. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case and the sprayers of the assessee, we quash the from 10AB of the Act filed on 05.03.2023, for A.Y. 2023-24 and consequent order passed in form 10AD of the Act dated 11.09.2023. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in case of Sawansukha foundation Vs. CIT in ITA Nos. 2154 & 2155/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2024-25 vide order dated 08.01.2025, in which according to the Bench held as under:- “4. We have perused the impugned orders and heard the rival submissions at length. In this matter, the facts are clear in as much as the assessee has a valid registration for AY 2024-25 in both the cases. It is also clear that inadvertently a fresh application filed for the year 2024-25 got rejected in an ex-parte manner. Since, there is a valid registration available with the assessee for AY 2024-25, in both the cases, the action of Ld. CIT(E) cannot be sustained in principle. However, while giving the effect to this appellate order, the Ld. CIT(E) is directed to verify the existence of valid registrations in both the cases for AY 2024-25 and thereafter, allow the registration to continue for AY 2024-25 as per the original order granting such registration.” 4.4. Accordingly, we allow the second issue in the additional grounds. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA No. 1567/KOL/2025 St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church; A.Y. 2023-24 5. The grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal are not pressed, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 23.12.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "