The assessee is the society registered under the Societies Act.\u00a0 It submitted\u00a0 application in Form 10A for provisional registration u\/s 12A, which has been granted by CIT (E).\u00a0 However, the application and Form No. 10AB getting permanent registration u\/s 12A was rejected by CIT (E).<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by such order, the assessee-society filed appeal before the Tribunal, but delayed by 55 days.\u00a0 The assessee-society, in discharge of its onus, explained that the delay has been occurred due to wrong advise of the Counsel to reapply for registration and due to delay in deciding the second application for registration\u00a0 and realizing the mistake, the appeal before the ITAT preferred with delay of 55 days.\u00a0 The ITAT rejected the application for the condonation of delay.\u00a0 On further appeal, the Hon\u2019ble High Court observed that the rejection of appeal for condonation of delay has serious civil consequences upon the status of the society that the society would not be able to claim tax exemption u\/s 11 and 12, that no counter affidavit filed by the assessee opposing the application for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit, that the delay occurred for such obvious sufficient cause within the meaning and ambit of the provisions of Section 253(5) of the Act.\u00a0 The Hon\u2019ble High Court noted that the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing appeal is malafide or it is deliberate, rather it is bonafide based on wrong advise of the Counsel for reapply for registration and accordingly, the High Court set aside the Tribunal\u2019s order with the condonation of delay.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Condonation of delay of 55 days-Delay in filing appeal on wrong advise of Counsel-Sufficient cause within the ambit of Section 253(5)-Delay is condoned.[S. 12A, 253(5), 260A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-e6f","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54203"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54203\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":54604,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54203\/revisions\/54604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}