Sport Seed Foundation vs Ward Exemption 2(2)

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

These two appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(E)’ for short) dated 21/12/2023 and 23/09/2024 wherein the application for approval filed under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by the Assessee and applicationseeking for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii)of the Act have been rejected

There is a delay of 519 days and nearly eight months delay in filing the captioned Appeals respectively. The Assessee filed an application for condoning the delay contending that the Counsel for the Assessee as well as the staffs were extremely pre-occupied in tax audit and ROC filing work. Thereafter the official of the Assessee was suffering from medical issues and was undergoing medical treatment, therefore, the Appeals could not be filed on time. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the captioned Appeals.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the captioned Appeals on delay in latches.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee contended that the delay contending that the Counsel for the Assessee as well as the staffs were extremely pre-occupied in tax audit and ROC filing work. Thereafter the official of the Assessee was suffering from medical issues and was undergoing medical treatment, therefore, the Appeals could not be filed on time.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the captioned Appeals subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund by the Assessee.

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the orders impugned has been passed in violation of principals of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(E) has not provided the opportunity to produce all the documents in support of its claim, thus sought for allowing the Appeals.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Appellant has not complied with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and not produced any documents in support of the claim, thus the orders impugned have been rightly passed by the Ld. CIT(E), therefore, sought for dismissal of the present Appeals.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the orders impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for want of documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellants and the Appellants have not been heard before passing the orders impugned. Thus, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce any/all documents in support of its claim.

In the result, the appeals of the Appellantare partly allowed for statistical purpose.