AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee. Both these appeals are time barred by about 250 days. The assessee has filed affidavits individually in both the cases and has requested for condoning the delay. The contents of the affidavit in one case deserves to be extracted for reference: -
"I, Sh. Gaurav Jindal S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Jindal R/O Plot No. 4, Block -QD, Pitampura, North Wes: Delhi, Delhi - 110034, do hereby affirm as under:
1.That I am the director of M/s Srikaya Foundation which is a section 8 company.
2.That the order with regard to rejection of our application for grant of registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) by Ld. CIT(E) came to our knowledge on 15.11.2024 when our consultant filed the IT return for AY 2024-25.
3.That there is a delay in filing of the appeal against the rejection of application for grant of registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of more than 8 months. And the main reason for the delay is the differences with the consultant who was handling our case with regard to grant of registration u/s 80G(5)(iii). He did not hand over the files timely. On this account there is a delay in filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT New Delhi.”
Considering that the contents of the two affidavits are similar, the delay in both the appeals is hereby condoned on the basis of averments therein and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.
ITA 6775 arises out of a rejection with respect to an application u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) dated 27.09.2024, passed by Ld. CIT(E), Delhi. Similarlyalso, through order dated 27.09.2024 the application u/s 12AB(i)(b)(ii) of the Act has also been rejected. In both the cases the Ld. CIT(E) has recorded that details as sought for from the assessee were not provided and hence, the cases have been disposed of against the assessee on the basis of material on record.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT and has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(E).
Before us the Ld. AR argued that they had provided considerable documents but due to the short time given for filing considerable details (as recorded in para 2 of both the impugned orders),the assessee could not present all the facts before the Ld. CIT(E). It was the submission that another chance may be given for presenting the facts before the Ld. CIT(E).
The Ld. DR relied upon the two orders of Ld. CIT(E).
We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that the assessee has suffered on account of an adequate presentation of facts before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the two impugned orders and remand both these matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration.The assessee would be expected to present all the necessary documents and the Ld. CIT(E) would appropriately consider the same.
In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.