Case Law Details
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contended that a tax consultant failed to inform it about the rejection order and that notices had been sent to an outdated email address.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.
Submission of Ld. AR:
2. The Ld. AR admitted that there was a delay of 661 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of the assessee for condonation of delay by Mr. Amey Suresh Kulkarni, Authorized Signatory. Ld. AR vehemently pleaded that there was sufficient cause for delay, hence, pleaded that delay may be condoned. Ld. AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Submission of Ld. DR:
3. The Ld. DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR submitted that assessee had not filed any details before the Ld. CIT(E) and hence, Ld. CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application for registration u/s 12A r.w.s. 12AB of the Act.
Findings and analysis:
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In this case rejection order was passed by the Ld. CIT(E) on 06.02.2024. Assessee filed appeal before the ITAT on 30.01.2026. Admittedly, there was a delay of 661 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the affidavit filed by Amey Suresh Kulkarni, Authorized Signatory on behalf of the assessee for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit are reproduced here as under :
“3. That thereafter, trust has applied for regular registration u/s 12A in Form 10AB on 20th September 2023. However, assessee’s said application was rejected by Order passed in Form 10AD on 06th February 2024.
4. That we had appointed a tax consultant to handle and manage all income-tax-related matters and were under the bona fide belief that he was diligently attending to and complying with all proceedings initiated against trust.
5. That the said consultant has not informed us about the issuance of any notices and about the passing of 12A Registration Rejection Order.
6. That we later came to know that several communications, including notices and the 12A Registration Rejection Order, were sent to an outdated email address and mobile number which were no longer active or accessible at the relevant time, and as a result, no alerts were received by us in time.”
4.1 We have carefully studied the affidavit. In the affidavit, it has been vaguely mentioned that the assessee had appointed Tax Consultant to handle the Income Tax matters who did not inform the assessee regarding rejection order. Nowhere in the affidavit, the name of the Tax Consultant has been mentioned. We specifically asked Mr. Sarang Gudhate, Chartered Accountant who appeared on behalf of the assessee, to specify the name of the Tax Consultant referred in the affidavit. Mr. Gudhate could not answer our question. We also asked the Ld. AR whether any action has been taken by the assessee against the impugned Tax Consultant for professional misconduct, has the assessee informed either the Bar Counsel of India or Institute of Chartered Accountant regarding the professional misconduct. Mr. Gudhate, the Ld. AR could not answer our question. Thus, assessee has not bothered to mention name of the Tax Consultant alleged to have been not communicated the relevant order. Assessee has not bothered to lodge a complaint with the appropriate authority for professional misconduct by the Tax Consultant. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the content of the affidavit are not true fully.
4.2 Assessee has also alleged in the affidavit that notices were received on inoperative email id. However, in the affidavit assessee has failed to specify the impugned email id. Assessee has not brought on record any documentary evidence to prove the same. Assessee has also not brought on record any documentary evidence to prove that assessee has taken any pro-active steps to inform the Department any additional email id.
4.3 For all the reasons mentioned above, we are satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for inordinate delay in filing of the appeal. The case laws relied by the assessee are distinguishable on facts as delay needs to be appreciated based on facts of each case. In this case, we have elaborated the facts and our reasoning for not condoning the delay.
4.4 Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on account of delay.
5. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th June, 2026
Author Bio
