2025 (12) TMI 658 - AT - Income Tax

Fresh applications for registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G maintainable despite earlier rejection by authorities

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes, holding that applications for registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G cannot be ... Rejection of applications for registration u/s 12A as well as application for approval u/s 80G - on earlier two occasions similar applications filed by the assessee were rejected - HELD THAT:- We fail to understand under which provision of law the applications for registration u/s. 12A and approval under Section 80G are not maintainable for sole reason that similar applications were rejected by the competent authorities. We feel it appropriate to restore all these applications i.e. registration u/s 12A as well as application for approval u/s 80G to the file of the CIT(E) with the directions to dispose of these applications on merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the delay in filing the appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Exemptions) refusing registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G was liable to be condoned. 1.2 Whether fresh applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G could be treated as non-maintainable solely on the ground that earlier similar applications had been rejected. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Condonation of delay in filing appeals Interpretation and reasoning 2.1 The Tribunal examined the reasons furnished for the delay, namely that the rejection order was handed over to the earlier authorised representative with instructions to file an appeal, that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the appeal had been filed in time, and that the appeal was not filed due to the authorised representative's preoccupation with return filing work and inadvertent misplacement of papers by his staff. 2.2 The Tribunal considered that the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee, there was no intention or wilful delay, and the delay caused prejudice only to the assessee. 2.3 Reliance was placed, as cited by the assessee, on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that a pragmatic and liberal approach should be adopted in condonation matters and that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, and on a coordinate Bench decision condoning substantial delay where bona fides were not in doubt. Conclusions 2.4 The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeals in time. The delay was condoned and the appeals were admitted for adjudication. Issue 2 - Maintainability of fresh applications under Sections 12A and 80G after earlier rejection Legal framework (as discussed) 2.5 The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the statutory provisions governing registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G, and considered whether there was any legal bar to entertaining fresh applications where earlier applications had been rejected. Interpretation and reasoning 2.6 It was noted that the Commissioner (Exemptions) had rejected the applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G as 'not maintainable' only because similar applications of the assessee had been rejected on earlier occasions. 2.7 The Tribunal observed that there was no indication of any provision of law under which such applications could be treated as non-maintainable merely due to previous rejections by the competent authority. The Tribunal expressly recorded its inability to understand under which provision the Commissioner (Exemptions) could hold the fresh applications as not maintainable on this sole ground. 2.8 The Tribunal considered that the Commissioner (Exemptions) ought to have examined and disposed of the applications on their merits instead of rejecting them at the threshold as non-maintainable. Conclusions 2.9 The Tribunal held that rejection of the applications under Section 12A and Section 80G as non-maintainable merely because of earlier rejections was not sustainable. 2.10 The orders of the Commissioner (Exemptions) were set aside and the applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G were restored to the file of the Commissioner (Exemptions) with a direction to dispose of them afresh on merits in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.11 The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.