Dr. Janardan Shankar Mulye Public Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Pune)
Pune ITAT Refuses to Condon 661-Day Delay in 12AB Appeal- Vague Allegations Against Tax Consultant and Unsubstantiated Claims of Wrong Email Not Enough
The Pune ITAT dismissed the assessee’s appeal challenging the rejection of registration under sections 12A/12AB, holding that the inordinate delay of 661 days in filing the appeal was not supported by sufficient cause. The assessee contended that a tax consultant failed to inform it about the rejection order and that notices had been sent to an outdated email address. However, the Tribunal found these explanations to be vague and unsupported by evidence. The affidavit did not even disclose the name of the tax consultant, nor was there any material to show that the assessee had taken action against the consultant for professional misconduct or lodged a complaint before the appropriate authority.
The Tribunal further observed that the assessee had failed to identify the alleged inoperative email address, produce any documentary evidence regarding the communication failure, or establish that it had informed the Income-tax Department of any change in its contact details. Holding that the explanations lacked credibility and did not constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation, the Tribunal declined to apply the liberal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, observing that each case must be decided on its own facts. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal against the rejection of section 12AB registration was dismissed as time-barred.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [Ld.CIT(E)] rejecting registration u/s 12A r.w.s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
