Appeal allowed: Non-speaking order remanded for detailed review on delay in registration application

The Tribunal found the order by the CIT(E) to be non-speaking and remanded the matter back for detailed examination on the delay in filing the application seeking registration under Section 12AA. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee trust. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the necessity of detailed reasoning for either condoning the delay or rejecting the application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the CIT(E) is perverse, non-speaking, arbitrary, and bad in law.
2. Whether the CIT(E) erred in passing the order by going against the directions of the ITAT, Jaipur provided in the order dated 13.09.2017.
3. Whether the CIT(E) erred in granting registration with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007 instead of from the inception of the trust.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Perverse, Non-speaking, Arbitrary, and Bad in Law:
The appellant contended that the order dated 28.08.2019 by the CIT(E) was perverse, non-speaking, arbitrary, and bad in law. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) granted registration to the assessee trust as a general public utility trust, applying the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 of the IT Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not address the condonation application filed by the assessee trust along with Form 10A, nor did the CIT(E) provide reasons for rejecting the explanation for the delay in filing the application. The Tribunal emphasized that the law mandates the CIT(E) to specify reasons in writing for either condoning the delay or rejecting the application. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the order non-speaking and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a detailed examination and adjudication on the delay in filing the application.

2. Directions of ITAT, Jaipur:
The appellant argued that the CIT(E) erred in passing the order by going against the directions of the ITAT, Jaipur provided in the order dated 13.09.2017. The Tribunal observed that the directions of the Coordinate Bench were limited to granting registration of the assessee trust under Section 12AA of the IT Act. The directions did not explicitly address the condonation of delay in filing the application. The Tribunal found no record suggesting that the assessee trust requested condonation of delay before the Coordinate Bench. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E) did not go against the directions of the ITAT, Jaipur, as the matter of condonation of delay was not adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench.

3. Retrospective Effect of Registration:
The appellant contended that the CIT(E) erred in granting registration with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007 instead of from the inception of the trust on 09.07.1970. The Tribunal referred to the relevant provisions of Section 12A, which allow the CIT(E) to condone the delay and grant registration from the date of creation of the trust if satisfied with the reasons for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not provide any reasoning for not accepting the explanation for the delay. The Tribunal found that the communication dated 14.02.2019 from the ITO (Hqrs) on behalf of the CIT(E) was unclear and did not reflect the precise reasons for rejecting the condonation application. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(E) must provide a detailed reasoning in writing for either condoning the delay or rejecting the application. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to examine and adjudicate the matter relating to the delay in filing the application for registration under Section 12AA.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to examine and expeditiously adjudicate the matter relating to the delay in filing the application seeking registration under Section 12AA. The CIT(E) was directed to pass a speaking order as per law after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee trust. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed examination and reasoning in writing for either condoning the delay or rejecting the application.

---