Condonation of Delay Over Spam Email: ITAT Remands 12AB Registration Application to CIT(E) [Read Order]
ITAT condoned the delay over spam email and remanded the registration under section 12AB to CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Condonation - Spam Email - ITAT - 12AB Registration Application - CIT(E) - taxscan
Condonation - Spam Email - ITAT - 12AB Registration Application - CIT(E) - taxscan
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned the delay in filing an appeal after finding that the impugned order had been sent by the department was to the assessee’s spam folder, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (CIT(E)) for fresh consideration of its application for the registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee-appellant, Umia Charitable Trust, had challenged the order by CIT(E). The CIT(E) had rejected the application under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) for the registration under section 12AB for the Assessment Year(AY) 2024–25.
The CIT(E) had rejected the application for 12AB registration on the ground that the assessee failed to submit the required documents despite being issued notices twice.
The assessee submitted that the notice issued by the department and the impugned order had gone to the spam folder. Therefore, the assessee was unaware of the passing of the order, hence it was not within its knowledge.
The Revenue contended that the delay was due to the assessee’s negligent conduct in not pursuing the proceedings diligently before the CIT(E), and argued there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay.
The Bench comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member) observed that there was no effective service of the order on the assessee and relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Collector vs. Mst. Katiji (1987), where the court condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal ordered that the interest of justice would be only served by deciding the matter on merits after granting a fair opportunity of hearing, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(E) was directed to consider all documents filed and provide due opportunity of hearing, while the assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek adjournments on frivolous grounds.
The assessee was represented by R.C. Makadia, while Nidhi Agarwal represented the department.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
