The order of the Bench was delivered by N. R. S. Ganesan (Judicial Member).-All the appeals of the assessee are directed against the different orders of various authorities. I. T. A. No. 348/Coch/2013 and I. T. A. No. 221/Coch/2014 relate to registration under section 12AA of the Act as charitable institution. I. T. A. No.75/ Coch/2013 is against the regular assessment made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, we heard all the appeals together and disposed of the same by this common order. 2. Smt. Divya Ravindran, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee-trust is running educational institutions. The assessee- trust applied for registration under section 12AA of the Act on May 30, 2007 before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. The said application was rejected by an order dated September 26, 2007 which is under challenge before this Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 221/Coch/2014. Immediately after receipt of the order of rejection dated September 26, 2007, the assessee was wrongly advised to file another application for registration under section 12AA on July 30, 2007. When the said application was processed by the authorities, the assessee was also advised to file application for approval under section 10(23C) before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. Eventually the assessee filed an application under section 10(23C) for approval on May 15, 2008. Since the application was filed for approval under section 10(23C), the application filed for registration under section 12AA for the second time on July 30, 2007 was redundant and the same was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner with the remarks "application withdrawn". Learned counsel further submitted that the assessee was advised to make another application for registration under section 12AA of the Act, accordingly, the third application was made for registration under section 12AA on March 31, 2010. This application was also rejected on September 30, 2010. On December 1, 2010, the assessee filed another application for registration under section 12AA complying with all the requirements as demanded by the Commissioner. Finally the Commissioner, by an order dated January 20, 2011 granted registration under section 12AA of the Act with effect from financial year 2010-11. 3. According to learned counsel, the assessee had also filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court for earlier disposal of the application filed for registration under section 12AA on November 30, 2007. The High Court in W. P.(C) 28008 of 2009 by the judgment dated August 20, 2011 dismissed the petition stating that no application is pending before the Commissioner for disposal. Thereafter the assessee-trust filed application before the High Court to review its judgment in Review Petition No. 180 of 2011 in which the High Court permitted the assessee either to file a fresh application for registration under section 12AA or to seek appropriate remedy to restore the application, if permissible under the law. In compliance with the orders of the High Court the Commissioner reposted hearing in respect of the application filed on May 30, 2007 which was originally dismissed on September 26, 2007. However, the Commissioner rejected the application once again by an order dated October 24, 2011 on the ground that the registration under section 12AA was already granted on the basis of the application filed by the assessee on March 31, 2010. Therefore, the earlier application for registration becomes null and void. Against this order of the Commissioner dated October 24, 2011 the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 348/Coch/2013. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the assessee also filed a writ petition before the High Court in W. P.(C) No. 12755 of 2012 challenging the order of the Commissioner dated October 24, 2011. The High Court rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that there is no provision in the Income-tax Act to restore an application which was already rejected. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the learned single judge before the Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the writ petition in W. P.(C) No. 12755 of 2012. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by the judgment dated January 8, 2014 in W. A. No. 873 of 2013 found that there was no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned single judge. However, the Division Bench further clarified that if any appeal is filed before the Tribunal, the same shall be considered and disposed of untrammeled by any findings or observations made in the writ proceedings. This judgment of the Division Bench was further clarified by another judgment in I. A. No. 99 of 2014 dated February 4, 2014 clarifying that the disposal of the appeal shall not preclude the petitioner/assessee in prosecuting the appeal filed against the order passed under section 12AA of the Act before this Tribunal. 5. In view of the above facts, according to learned counsel, the assessee could not file appeal against the original order of rejection dated September 26, 2007. The assessee, according to learned counsel, was prosecuting wrong remedies before the Commissioner by filing successive applications and writ petition before the High Court. According to learned counsel, the assessee ought to have filed an appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner dated September 26, 2007. Due to wrong advice and prosecuting wrong remedy before the wrong forum the assessee was prevented from filing appeal before this Tribunal, therefore, there was a delay of 2,353 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the issue of registration may be remanded back to the file of the Commissioner for reconsideration in the light of the subsequent material that was filed before the Commissioner who granted registration from the financial year 2010-11 by an order dated March 31, 2010. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 309 (Mad) wherein delay of 1826 days was condoned. 6. We heard Smt. Latha V. Kumar, the learned Departmental representative also. The learned Departmental representative submitted that the first application for registration under section 12AA was filed by the assessee on July 30, 2007. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum rejected the same by an order dated July 26, 2007 since the assessee did not comply with details called for by the Commissioner to prove the genuineness of its activity. The assessee filed another application on November 30, 2007. The same was dismissed as withdrawn since the assessee was prosecuting another application for approval under section 10(23C) before the Chief Commissioner. Thereafter the assessee filed the third application on March31, 2010 which was also rejected on September 30, 2010 since the assessee failed to file relevant material/document to substantiate the genuineness of its activities. Thereafter the assessee filed the fourth application for registration under section 12AA on December 1, 2010. On the fourth application, the Commissioner granted registration on January 29, 2011 with effect from financial year 2010-11. According to the learned Departmental representative the appeal filed by the assessee in I. T. A. No.221/Coch/2014 is an afterthought. The assessee has challenged the orders before the High Court and the High Court rejected the claim of the assessee to restore the application. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee cannot be entertained at this stage. 7. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The facts as narrated by learned counsel for the assessee are not in dispute. In fact, the learned Departmental representative endorsed the facts as narrated by learned counsel for the assessee. The assessee was advised to file successive applications for registration instead of challenging the order of the Commissioner dated September 26, 2007 before this Tribunal in a manner known to law. The assessee also filed writ petitions before the High Court and review application. The High Court permitted the assessee either to file a fresh application or to file an application to restore the earlier application which was dismissed provided the same is permitted under law. The Commissioner posted the petition for hearing as per the order of the High Court. The Commissioner rejected the prayer for restoration on the ground that there is no provision for restoration in the Income-tax Act. It is a fact that there is no provision in the Income-tax Act to restore an application already dismissed for registration under section 12AA of the Act. If at all the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner it is for the assessee to challenge the same before the appellate forum. Without challenging that order, the assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner before the High Court by way of writ petition. The High Court rejected the writ petition on the ground that there is no provision for restoration of the application which was dismissed earlier. On the review petition filed by the assessee, the High Court permitted the assessee to file fresh application or to file application for restoration. The assessee filed fresh application and simultaneously filed another application for approval under section 10(23C) of the Act. Ultimately, the second application was also dismissed and the third application also ended with the same fate. However, the assessee was successful in getting the registration under section 12AA on the fourth application which was filed on December 1, 2010. The Commissioner granted registration on January 29, 2011 with effect from 2010-11. 8. In view of the above factual position it is obvious that the assessee was not leaving the matter and was in fact vigilant enough in prosecuting the proceedings for approval under section 12AA of the Act. Of course, the assessee was knocking wrong doors by prosecuting the proceedings bona fidely. The question arises for consideration is when the assessee was prosecuting the proceedings bona fidely before the wrong forums whether the delay of 2353 days in filing the appeal could be condoned or not ? This Tribunal finds that the Madras High Court in the case CIT v. K. S. P. Shanmugavel Nadar [1985] 153 ITR 596 (Mad) had an occasion to consider an identical issue. The Madras High Court found that prosecuting a wrong remedy before the wrong forum is reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The Madras High Court found that bona fide prosecution of other remedies because of which the delay has occurred has to be taken into account. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned a delay of more than 20 years in filing the appeal. 9. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee was prosecuting other remedies bonafidely before other forums and ultimately got succeeded in getting the registration before the Commissioner from the financial year 2010-11, therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the time. Accordingly, the delay of 2353 days is condoned and the appeal of the assessee in 221/Coch/2014 is admitted. 10. Now coming to the merit of the case, the Commissioner rejected the application of the assessee on the failure of the assessee to produce certain material which was called for by letter dated July 10, 2007. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the assessee apparently complied with the requirement of the Commissioner and registration was also granted from financial year 2010-11. Therefore, giving one more opportunity to the assessee to produce all the details that may be required by the Commissioner may not prejudice the interests of the Revenue. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving one more opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary details/materials before the Commissioner would definitely promote the cause of justice. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the application filed for registration under section 12AA the impugned order of the Commissioner dated September 26, 2007 is set aside and the issue of registration under section 12AA of the Act is remanded back to the file of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall reconsider the issue on the basis of the material that may be filed by the assessee and hereafter decide the issue independently in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Tribunal in this order. In view of the above, appeal in I. T. A. No. 334/Coch/ 2013 becomes infructuous. 11. Now coming to appeal in I. T. A. No. 74/Coch/2013, this is a regular appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 5, 2012 for the assessment year 2007-08. Since the issue of registration is remitted back to the file of the Commissioner, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the decision that may be taken by the Commissioner on the application filed by the assessee for registration under section 12AA would have an impact for the assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 has to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer in the light of the order that may be passed by the Commissioner either granting or rejecting the registration under section 12AA of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the lower authorities for the assessment year 2007-08 in I. T. A. No. 75/Coch/ 2013 is set aside and the entire issue raised in the appeal is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the order that may be passed by the Commissioner for registration under section 12AA of the Act and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. It is made clear that if it is found to have collected any capitation fees for admission of students, i.e., collection of any money over and above the prescribed fee fixed by the committee nominated by the State Government for admission of students the assessee is not entitled for registration under section 12AA and also not entitled for exemption under sections 11, 12 and 10(23C) of the Act. 12. In the result, appeals in I. T. A. No. 75/Coch/2013 and I.T.A. No. 221/ Coch/2014 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal in I.T.A. No. 384/ Coch/2013 is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 12th September, 2014.