Delay of 33 days in filing appeal against 12AB/80G order condoned due to assessee’s limited staff, infrequent email checks, and delayed notification by CA.

By | June 1, 2025
0 Comment

I. Delay of 33 days in filing appeal against 12AB/80G order condoned due to assessee’s limited staff, infrequent email checks, and delayed notification by CA.

II. Rejection of 12AB registration application reversed and remanded, allowing assessee to cure non-compliance (trust deed, Form 10AB, state registration, activity genuineness).

I. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal Against 12AB/80G Order Due to Ignorance of Email Communication.

Issue:

Whether a delay of 33 days in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Exemption) under Section 12AB and Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be condoned in the interest of justice, when the delay is attributed to the assessee-trust’s small staff, infrequent checking of email/income tax portal, and delayed notification by its CA.

Facts I:

  • The assessee-trust filed an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Exemption) under Section 12AB (registration of charitable trusts) and Section 80G (approval for donations).
  • There was a delay of 33 days in filing this appeal.
  • The assessee explained the delay by stating that the Commissioner (Exemption)’s order would have been served on the assessee’s email ID.
  • However, the assessee, being a trust, operated with a very small number of staff, and the staff did not check the trust’s email ID regularly. Consequently, the management/trustees were not aware of the order sent on email.
  • The staff also did not regularly check the assessee’s income tax portal.
  • It was the assessee’s Chartered Accountant (CA) who, while surfing the income tax portal, discovered that an assessment order had been passed in the assessee’s case.
  • The CA then informed the management/trustees of the assessee about the impugned order, leading them to approach counsel, prepare the appeal, deposit fees, and submit Form 36.

Decision I:

The court held in favor of the assessee. It ruled that, on the given facts, the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal was to be condoned in the interest of justice.

Key Takeaways I:

  • Liberal Approach to Condonation of Delay: Courts generally adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach in condoning delays, especially if the delay is minor and a reasonable explanation is provided, to ensure that substantive justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities.
  • “Sufficient Cause” for Delay: The explanation provided by the trust (small staff, infrequent email/portal checks, and delayed notification by CA) was deemed to constitute “sufficient cause” for the 33-day delay. This acknowledges the practical challenges faced by smaller organizations.
  • Importance of Timely Communication: While electronic communication is standard, the onus is on the department to ensure that such communication is genuinely brought to the attention of the assessee, and courts will consider genuine reasons for non-receipt or delayed knowledge.
  • Interest of Justice: The overarching principle of ensuring justice often guides courts in condoning delays, allowing the merits of the case to be heard.

II. Remand of 12AB Registration Application for Curable Defects and Opportunity of Hearing.

Issue:

When the Commissioner (Exemption) rejects an application for registration under Section 12AB on grounds that include non-submission of a legible trust deed, incomplete details in Form 10AB, non-registration under a state public trust act, and inability to establish genuineness of activities, whether the matter should be remanded to provide the assessee one more chance to cure these defects and present its case.

Facts II:

  • The assessee-trust filed an application for registration under Section 12AB.
  • The Commissioner (Exemption) rejected this application based on four reasons:
    1. Non-submission of a legible copy of the trust deed.
    2. Incomplete details in Form No. 10AB.
    3. Assessee was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
    4. Assessee could not establish the genuineness of its activities.
  • The assessee submitted that:
    • Registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust (RPT) Act was under finalization.
    • Reasons for incomplete details in Form No. 10AB were curable.
    • The assessee would submit a copy of the registration certificate (RPT Act) and a completed Form No. 10AB in physical form to the Commissioner (Exemption) if the matter was remanded.

Decision II:

The court held in favor of the assessee (by remanding the matter). Considering that the reasons advanced by the Commissioner were curable in nature, the court ruled that the assessee should be given one more chance to advance documents before the Commissioner (Exemption) regarding the application for registration under Section 12AB. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Commissioner (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide adequate opportunities of being heard to the assessee concerning the registration of the trust under Section 12AB.

Key Takeaways II:

  • Curable Defects vs. Fatal Flaws: The judgment distinguishes between curable defects (like illegible documents, incomplete forms, pending state registration) and fundamental flaws that might render an application inherently unregistrable.
  • Principles of Natural Justice (Opportunity to Cure): When an application is rejected due to rectifiable defects, principles of natural justice require that the applicant be informed of these specific defects and be given a reasonable opportunity to rectify them before a final adverse order is passed.
  • Facilitative Role of Authorities: Especially in the context of charitable trusts, tax authorities are expected to adopt a more facilitative approach. Rejecting an application outright for curable deficiencies without a proper chance for the assessee to comply is often deemed unreasonable.
  • “Genuineness of Activities”: While this is a substantive ground, its determination also depends on the documents and explanations provided. If previous procedural shortcomings prevented the assessee from fully demonstrating genuineness, a fresh opportunity is warranted.
  • Remand for Fresh Adjudication: The remedy of remanding the matter ensures that the Commissioner (Exemption) now re-examines the application on its merits, considering all rectified documents and explanations, after providing a proper hearing. This is a common approach to prevent injustice due to procedural technicalities.
  • Compliance with State Laws: While registration under state public trust acts is a separate legal requirement, its absence at the time of application may be curable, especially if the process is ongoing. The income tax authority should allow time for such compliance if it’s genuinely being pursued.
IN THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’
Shriram Paropkari Trust
v.
Commissioner of Income-tax Exemption
Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member
and RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAi, Accountant Member
IT Appeal Nos. 338 & 339 (JPR.) OF 2025
MAY  19, 2025
Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. for the Appellant. Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member. – These two appeals are filed by assessee and are arising out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur passed under section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short Act] both dated 29.11.2024 [here in after “CIT(E)”] respectively.
2.1 In ITA No. 338/JP/2025 the assessee has raised following grounds: –
“1. The Impugned order u/s 80G/10AB of the Act dated 29/11/2024 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed.
2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the application for granting Registration/approval u/s 80G. The rejection so made and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s 80G is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. The same kindly may be quashed.
3. That the impugned order so passed was in the contravention of the law prevalent at the relevant point of time and also on fact and hence may kindly be quashed. The Id. CIT(E) may be directed to grant Registration/approval from the date of application.
4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.
2. 2 In ITA No. 339/JP/2025 the assessee has raised following grounds: –
“1. The Impugned order u/s 12AB of the Act dated 29/11/2024 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed.
2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the application for granting Registration/approval u/s 12AB. The rejection so made and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s 12AB is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. The same kindly may be quashed.
3. That the impugned order so passed was in the contravention of the law prevalent at the relevant point of time and also on fact and hence may kindly be quashed. The Id. CIT(E) may be directed to grant Registration/approval from the date of application.
4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.
3. At the outset of the hearing of the appeals it is noted both the appeals were filed with a delay of 33 days. The assessee prayed to condone the delay in filling the appeal by a separate prayer dated 27.02.2025 which reads as follows :
Sub: Prayer for condonation of Delay
Ref: In the matter of SHRIRAM PAROPKARI TRUST having PAN No. AANTS6724]
Hon’ble Sir,
1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant/assessee is a trust and filed this appeal against the order dated 29/11/2024 passed by Hon’ble CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR.
2. Further as per date of order passed by CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR i.e. 29/11/2024, the appeal was to be filed within two months from the end of the month in which the order was communicated i.e. on or before 31/01/2025 but the same has been filed online on 29/02/25. If we count delay then it is about 33 days. That in this case the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the prescribed time limit of two months. Although actually there is no delay if following facts are being considered:-
3. The reason of late filing was that the impugned order would have been served on the email id i.e KRIPASHANKAR684@GMAIL.COM of the assessee but the assessee being a trust works with very small number of staff and the staff does not check trust’s email id regularly. Thus, the management/trustees of assessee were not aware about the order sent on the email address. And the staff also does not check income tax portal of the assessee.
4. However, assessee’s CA while surfing the income tax portal on 20/02/2025, found that an assessment order has been passed in the case of the assessee, thereafter he informed the management/trustees of assessee and then it has come to the knowledge of the management/trustees of assessee that the impugned order has been passed.
5. Thereafter, they approached to counsel who prepared the appeal and deposited the appeal fees on 26/02/2025 and submitted the Form 36 on 27/02/2025.
6. Thus, due to the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal got delayed, however, there is no negligence’s on part of management/trustees of assessee or the counsels.
7. It is submitted that, recently on 05/08/2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra v. UOI (CA No. 8435-8436 of 2024 (@S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 2733-2734 of 2024 dt. 5-8-2024) held that

“No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.”

8. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon’ble Court are notable:

“The legislature has conferred the 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’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But, the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy.”

The abovementioned judgment is a leading case on the subject and has a binding force on all the officers/courts subordinate thereto.
8. The apex court have again reiterated that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction. The Hon’ble court has also held that advancing of substantial justice should be of prime importance. Kindly refer Vedbai v. Shantaram Baburam Patil & Others 253 ITR 798 (SC).
Prayer In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal position, the delay so caused may.”
The contention so raised were also supported by an affidavit signed by Shri Ram Niwas Goyal, trustee of the applicant – assessee trust. The Id. AR of the assessee appearing in these appeals submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties and the delay is of 33 days delay only and was on account of the facts stated in the prayer for condonation of delay. In support he relied upon the judicial precedent.
3. 1 On the other hand ld. DR representing the revenue submitted that the assessee has engaged the counsel and therefore, the reasons advanced are not reasonable. However, she has not raised any specific objection on the facts narrated by the assessee.
3. 2 The bench noted that the assessee contended that the email address mentioned was not regularly checked by the staff of the trust and when the ld. AR of the assessee came to know about the passing of order the assessee-applicant within a reasonable time filed the appeal which is delayed by 33 days. The bench considering the judicial decision cited takes a liberal approach and condone the delay in the interest of the justice.
4. Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 339/JP/2025, the application for registration of the applicant-trust was rejected for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. While rejecting that application ld. CIT(E) observed that the assessee has not submitted legible copy of trust deed. He also noted that the application moved registration u/s 12AB of the Act was not complete and the assessee and the required registration of the trust under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was not submitted. Ld. CIT(E) as regards the activities of the trust noted the applicant -assessee has not submitted the details asked on the following points;
•List of donors
•Bills and vouchers of expenses
•Photograph of activities
•Details of social handle
•Digital footprint
•Details of Bank account details of last three years
•Details of charitable activities and its beneficiaries
Based on that observation ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee could not establish genuineness of activities and thereby on that observation and the non-compliance as noted herein above, the application for registration of the trust was rejected by the ld. CIT(E).
5. Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee in ITA No. 338/JP/2025, the application for recognition of the trust u/s 80G of the Act was rejected by the ld. CIT(E) because the applicant assessee was not considered for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and thereby the recognition of the trust u/s. 80G of the Act was also rejected.
6. While hearing of the present appeals, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was allowed short time and only three opportunities were granted and thereby the assessee could not file legible copy of trust deed. As regards certificate under RPT Act, the same was not provided because it was applied and as regards incomplete Form 10AB, he assured that he will submit all the details i.e. required in Form 10AB and also submit all the details so as to prove the genuineness of the activities of the trust. Based on that prayer he submitted that the matter regarding registration u/s 12AB of the Act and that of the 80G of the Act be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(E) in the interest of equity and justice.
7. On the other hand, ld. DR heavily relied upon the finding recorded in the order of ld. CIT(E) and at time same time, she did not object to the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee to remand back the matter in the interest of justice to the file of the ld. CIT(E).
8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. The Bench noted that the application u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected on account of four reasons. First is non submission of legible copy of trust deed for which the ld. AR of the assessee assured the same will be submitted and that reasons so advanced is curable. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that since the registration under the RPT Act is under finalization and reasons for incomplete details in Form no. 10AB, are also curable reasons as the assessee – applicant will submit the copy of registration certificate and completed form in physical to the file of the ld. CIT(E) if the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(E). So far as the last reasons ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the required details are available but due to short time they could not be submitted before the ld. CIT(E). Therefore, considering the reasons advanced being curable in nature we are of the considered view that the assessee applicant needs one chance to contest the merits of the dispute. Based on the overall facts as discussed herein above bench adopt a lenient view and feels that the assessee should be given one more chance to advance documents before the ld. CIT(E) as to the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. In view of all facts and circumstances, the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication by providing by adequate opportunities of being heard to the assessee with regard to the registrations of the trust u/s 12AB of the Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 339/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.
9. Since we restore the appeal of the assessee with regard to the registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the file of ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication and therefore, outcome of the appeal of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act is consequential in nature and is also restored the file of ld. CIT(E). Thus, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 338/JP/2025 is also allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 338 & 339/JP/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.