Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1281 - AT - Income TaxIssues Involved: 1. Interpretation of the limitation period for filing Form 10AB under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The delay in filing Form 10AB due to non-availability on the Income Tax Portal. 3. Consideration of the extension granted by CBDT Circular No. 06/2023. 4. Denial of personal opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of the Limitation Period: The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the limitation period for filing Form 10AB under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) interpreted the limitation period as "within six months of commencement of the activities," which the appellant argued is practically impossible for existing trusts applying for the first time for approval. The Tribunal noted that the provision's wording, "whichever is earlier," applies to newly formed trusts and not to existing ones. The Tribunal found ambiguity in the provisions of section 80G(5)(iii) and the relevant CBDT circulars, leading to the conclusion that the delay in filing should be condoned. 2. Delay Due to Non-Availability on the Portal: The appellant contended that the delay in filing Form 10AB was due to its non-availability on the Income Tax Portal at the due date. The Tribunal acknowledged this technical difficulty and considered it a valid reason for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay was not due to any fault of the appellant but due to the non-availability of the form on the portal. 3. Consideration of CBDT Circular No. 06/2023: The appellant argued that the CIT(E) failed to consider the extension granted till 30/09/2023 by CBDT Circular No. 06/2023. The Tribunal noted that while the circular extended the due date for filing certain forms, it did not specifically extend the date for filing Form 10AB under section 80G(5)(iii). However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the ambiguity in the circulars and the practical difficulties faced by existing trusts warranted condonation of the delay. 4. Denial of Personal Opportunity of Being Heard: The appellant argued that the CIT(E) erred in law by not providing a personal opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application. The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(E) should have provided a personal hearing to the appellant, especially given the complexities and ambiguities involved in the case. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing Form 10AB should be condoned in the interest of justice. It relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Surat in the case of Vananchal Kelvani Trust, which dealt with a similar issue and condoned the delay. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT(Exemption) vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, which emphasized the importance of condoning delays to ensure substantial justice. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) with directions to decide the application of the appellant in accordance with the law and to provide a personal hearing to the appellant. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
|