IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT)

BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 217/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: N.A.

Kashi Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vill. Maujgarh, Abohar (Exemptions), Chandigarh

152132 (PB)

[PAN: AACTK 2050Q]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

I.T.A. No. 218/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: N.A.

Surta Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vill. Panjkosi, Abohar (Exemptions), Chandigarh

152128 (PB)

[PAN: AAMTS 8251M]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Sh. Aditya Periwal & Sh. A. K. Periwal, CAs Respondent by : Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

ORDER

Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:

The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh even dated 08.05.2023 challenging therein rejection of its application filed in Form No. 10AB u/s 12A(1) (ac)(iii) of the Act, ex-parte qua the assessee on identical fact.

2. There was a delay of 286 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Trust had never received any Communication regarding notices on its Primary or Secondary E-mail ID registered on E-Proceedings Portal for furnishing documents / evidence nor received any message on its registered Mobile. Number. In support, it had filed an Affidavit of its Accountant Sh. Sandeep Kumar duly notarized. The Ld. AR argued that finding given by worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Chandigarh by granting three opportunities is totally devoid of any merits. The appellant came to know on the date it Logged in E-Proceedings Portal on 29-02-2024, to file the information about registration under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The said non communication of the notices and the rejection order of the CIT(Exemption)on Primary or Secondary E-mail ID's or on Registered Mobile caused delay of 286 days for no fault of the appellant. He pleaded that non communication of notices and impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice constitute valid and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before Tribunal, which is non intentional and bonafide, may kindly be condoned in the larger interest of justice. In support, Reliance placed on the case of Collector Land Acquisitionvs.MST. KATIJI & OTHERS. (SC) 167 ITR 471). The Ld. DR has no objection in view of bonafide reason for delay.

2.1 Considering the facts of non-communication of the notices and impugned order as well, we find that there was sufficient cause for the said delay of 286 days in filing these appeals. The Legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression "Sufficient cause" in section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of justice in the larger interest of public. Accordingly, accept the grievance of the assessee genuine as there was bonafide and valid reason for the said delay of 286 days in filing the appeal before us and therefore, the delay is condoned and appeals admitted.

3. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT (Exemptions) Chandigarh has granted provisional Registration No. AAMTS8251ME20206 vide order dated 27-05-2021 valid from Assessment Year 2021-22 to Assessment Year 2023-24 i.e. for (3) Assessment Years. He contended that the CIT (Exemptions) was not justified in rejecting application for permanent Registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 exparte qua the appellant on account of non-communication of notices allegedly issued as mentioned in the impugned order because the Trust had never received any Communication regarding these notices o