THE KASHMIR CROWN,BARAMULLA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 169/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The Kashmir Crown, a trust, appealed against the decision of the CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh, which rejected their application for registration in Form 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The rejection was based on the absence of response from the assessee to various notices issued by the CIT (E) through the ITBA portal. The tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive any notices via email or speed post, which led to the decision to remand the case for a fresh consideration. The tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapses in communication and the inadvertent delay in filing the appeal by 17 days, which was condoned.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312600 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 169/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: N.A. The Kashmir Crown, Dewanbagh, Baramulla, H.Q. 193101, Jammu & Kashmir. [PAN: AAETT 0067A] (Appellant) Vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C. A. Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg, CIT-D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 08.04.2025 29.04.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh rejecting the application for registration in Form 10AB, dated 25/09/2023, filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii), vide rejection order dated 03/01/2024, in absence of any response from the assessee to various notices issued in the ITBA portal from the office of the Ld. CIT (E) . 2 I.T.A. No. 169/Asr/2024 The Kashmir Crown v. CIT (E) 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 17 days (seventeen days), for which an affidavit is filed by the chairman of the assessee trust (Mohd Imran Ganie ) explaining the delay. The assessee stated that he was under an honest impression that after rejection of the application for registration the assessee was entitled to file for registration afresh (instead of preferring an appeal) and the delay was further compounded by engagement of his counsel who pursued alternate options before being properly advised by senior counsels, on the guidance of whom this appeal is filed. This resulted in a delay of 17 days which was inadvertent and not intentional, and the same may please be condoned. The Ld DR has no objections. Taking into considerations the reasons stated, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal contained in form 36 are as follows: “1. The Ld. CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act in an arbitrary manner 2. The Ld. CIT (E) has erred in not giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard while rejecting the application made u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 3. That we did not receive any notices or communications at our registered address via speed post. Respectfully, we also submit that no attempts were made to utilize contact information provided in the assessee's profile, such as telephone numbers or email addresses, which could have empowered counsel to take proactive steps and preclude lapses. With utmost deference, we submit that pursuing additional direct 3 I.T.A. No. 169/Asr/2024 The Kashmir Crown v. CIT (E) communication avenues like telephone or email could have enabled counsel intervention to avoid these unfortunate circumstances. Therefore, not serving the notices issued properly is against the cardinal principal of natural justice and accordingly order deserves to be quashed. 4. That Ld. CIT, (E)'s action of not providing proper opportunity of being heard and dismissing the application on the basis that no representation has been made by the assessee, despite the fact that the notices that were issued in the name of the assessee had not even been sent to the email id referred to in proceeding which would have given a warning signal to the assessee and the same becomes evident by viewing the proceedings in the portal. 5. Assessee craves right to add, alter or modify any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is a trust was granted provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iv), of the Act from AY 2022-23 to AY 2024- 25, vide order dated 31/05/2021. Application for final registration in Form 10AB , on 25th September, 2023, has been rejected vide order dated 3rd January, 2024, for failure to comply with various notices issued by the Ld. CIT (E), and in absence of necessary documents required for verification of the objects and genuineness of the activities of the trusts . 5. It is noted that notices has been issued on three occasions in ITBA portal and last two notices on 5th October, 2023 and again on 29th November, 2023 , has been issued vide speed post , but still without any compliance from assessee. 4 I.T.A. No. 169/Asr/2024 The Kashmir Crown v. CIT (E) 6. The Ld AR of the assessee filed a short paper book containing copies of trust deeds, written submissions, and argued that the assessee has not received any notices in e-mail even though the email id is within the knowledge of the department and in support of which he has filed (snap shot copies of all email received in his id but none from Ld CIT (E). He further submitted that the speed post notices also has not been received by the assessee. 7. As such he requests for another opportunity to present his case and for filing of all necessary documents as per requirement ,because for all practical purpose in absence of any notice in the email id, no proper service of notice can be considered to have been made. 8. The Ld. DR has no objection if the matter is remanded. 9. We have heard the counsels and are of the opinion that in absence of any notice in email id and in absence of any representation, the application has not be considered on merits. 10. As such in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the Ld CIT (E) for considering this application for registration afresh and we direct the assessee to furnish all necessary particulars and documentary evidences , as per notice issued earlier and to fully cooperate in fresh proceedings. 5 I.T.A. No. 169/Asr/2024 The Kashmir Crown v. CIT (E) 11. We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all contentions are left open. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 29.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Krinwant Sahay) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order "