2025 (3) TMI 1077 - AT - Income Tax

Refusal to grant registration u/s 12AB - assessee has failed to satisfy about the genuineness of the activities - HELD THAT - We note that the Manager of the trust is an old and illiterate man and don t well conversant with the registration of Trust laws and the person who was working with the assessee who is looking after this issue has left the job and the assessee could not avail the opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(E). We further note that according to the order notices were only sent to the assessee and the order does not speak about the services of notice upon the assessee. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party should be given an opportunity to represent case before the authority. In the interest of justice we set aside the order of CIT(E) restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication in this matter and pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee who in turn is also directed to submit the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(E). Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purpose.

2002 (10) TMI 265 - AT

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:

Whether the delay of 234 days in filing the appeal by the assessee should be condoned.
Whether the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was justified.
Whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to in the process of rejecting the application for registration.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal referred to the precedent set in the case of Shakti Clearing Agency (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, which held that delays caused by circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, especially when there is no mala fide intent, should be condoned.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the delay was not due to any mala fide action by the assessee but was caused by circumstances beyond his control, including his advanced age and lack of familiarity with online compliance systems.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the delay was attributable to the negligence of the accountant, who failed to inform the assessee timely and subsequently left the job.
Application of law to facts: Applying the principles from the cited precedent, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits.
Conclusions: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, as it was not due to any fault of the assessee.

2. Rejection of Application for Registration under Section 12AB

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act requires the Commissioner to verify the genuineness of the activities of the trust and their alignment with its objectives before granting registration.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had rejected the application due to the absence of sufficient documentary evidence to verify the genuineness of the trust's activities.
Key evidence and findings: The assessee failed to submit necessary documents, such as notes on activities, bank statements, identity proofs, and annual accounts, despite multiple notices.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal noted that the lack of response from the assessee hindered the verification process required under Section 12AB.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for another opportunity to present the case with the requisite documents.
Conclusions: The Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the Commissioner and remand the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present the necessary documentation.

3. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not fully observed, as the assessee was not adequately informed or given a fair opportunity to respond to the notices.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the notices were sent electronically, and there was no evidence of effective service upon the assessee.
Application of law to facts: Given the lack of proper notice and opportunity for the assessee to be heard, the Tribunal determined that the matter required reconsideration.
Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the case for a fresh hearing, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to present the case.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The assessee would not gain anything by filing the appeals late. There was no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeals was a result of negligence or inaction on the part of the tax consultant."
Core principles established: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances leading to delays and the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice by providing a fair opportunity to be heard.
Final determinations on each issue: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.