Fig Tree Foundation Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
This appeal was filed by the assessee, Fig Tree Foundation, against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-11, Delhi, dated 25.09.2024, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The appeal before ITAT was delayed by 216 days, and the assessee sought condonation of delay. The delay was explained in an affidavit, stating that the order of CIT(A) was communicated via email but went to the SPAM folder, making the assessee unaware of the order. The assessee also stated that a new tax consultant had to be engaged after disengaging the previous one, which contributed to the delay. The Revenue opposed condonation, citing lack of vigilance by the assessee.
The ITAT examined the reasons for delay. It found the first reason—order going to SPAM—plausible, given the nature of digital communications. The second reason, taking six months to appoint a new tax consultant, was deemed unreasonable, reflecting negligence on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT condoned the delay but imposed a cost of ₹1,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund, emphasizing that a meritorious case should not be dismissed due to technical lapses.
On merits, the dispute pertained to denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CPC had rejected the assessee’s claim because the return of income did not include details of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the CPC’s order, stating it was the assessee’s responsibility to furnish the necessary details in the return. The assessee contended that registration details were already available with the Income Tax Department, and exemption could not be denied solely for the omission in the return. Further, the assessee argued that taxing gross receipts without considering applications shown against the receipts contravened settled provisions of law.
