South Asia Biotechnology Centre vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions)

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(E)] both dated 24.12.2024 passed under section 12AB/(1)(b)(ii) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

The appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.4563/Del/2026 is regarding the rejection of its request filed under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.4562/Del/2026 is regarding the rejection of its request filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. As both the appeals are of the same assessee concerning common issues of rejection of its application under section 12A and 80G, they were heard together and for the purposes of convenience, adjudicated by this common order.

At the outset, we have noted that the Registry has identified the delay of 421 days in this case for filing of appeals. Justifying the delay, the appellant had submitted that due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons the appeal could not file in time. It was submitted that the impugned orders were negligently misplaced by the caretaker of the appellant trust contributing to the delay. The appellant learnt of the order only upon receiving notice u/s 148A. All these factors contributed to the above-mentioned delays. Thus, it was argued that the delay is not intentional. We are conscious that no litigant gains by delay its matter. The Ld. DR did not seriously object to the condonation of delay. Delay of 421 days in filing of these assessee’s appeal are condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Hon’ble Apex court decision in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that its right to natural justice has been violated in as much as due opportunity of being heard has not been given before rejecting its request for grant of registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act. The ld. Counsel accordingly requested that it be provided one last chance to defend its case and, the matter be considered for remission back to the ld. CIT(E). The ld. Counsel assured that full compliance shall be made to the statutory notices issued by the Revenue authorities.

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have noted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected applications of the assessee without due consideration of facts on records alluding towards a non-application of mind. We have noted that the ld. CIT(E) has dismissed assessee’s application for grant of registration under section 12A and u/s 80G purely drawing unilateral conclusions. We have noted that the nothing on record to suggest that any prior opportunity of contesting the conclusions drawn by the ld. CIT(E) was accorded to the appellant. Reasonable opportunity of being heard is right of every tax payer. Be that as it may be in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(E) and remit the matter of grant of registration u/s 12A as well as u/s 80G back to ld. CIT(E) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law. Due opportunity of being heard shall be given to the assessee. The assessee shall comply with all the statutory notices and any non-compliance shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No.4562/Del/2026 and vide ITA No. 4563/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Finally, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.