KALYAN RIVERSIDE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KALYAN vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1055/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 2023AY 2022-20234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had given opportunities but the assessee failed to substantiate its case. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed applications for registration under sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner requested additional information and clarifications, which the assessee failed to provide despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the applications were rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration under Section 12A and 80G was justified due to non-compliance by the assessee, and if a remand is appropriate for a fresh decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

For Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh
Hearing: 18.07.2023Pronounced: 20.07.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1055/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 1056/Mum/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R Per N K Choudhry, Judicial Member: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant herein against the orders even dated 29th Sep,2022 and 30th Sep, 2022 impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax exemption, (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’),u/s. 12A and 80G of the Act for the AY: 2022-2023.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the Appellant inspite of sending notice for the date of hearing on 18.07.2023, hence considering peculiar facts and circumstances, we are deciding these appeals as ex-parte.

1.

2 Kalyan Riverside Charitable Foundation 3. First we will decide I.T.A. No. 1055/Mum/2023 which pertains to challenge of the order rejecting the application for registration u/s 12 of the Act.

4.

At the outset, we observe that the Appellant by filling online application on dated 31st March, 2022 in form no. 10AB sought registration under section 12A (1)(AC)(iii) of the Act. The same was taken into consideration by the Ld. Commissioner and vide notice issued through ITBA portal on 19th July, 2022, requested the Appellant to upload certain other information/clarification by 3rd Aug, 2022 which remains un-complied with. Thereafter, vide notice dated 18th Sep, 2022 another opportunity was given to the Appellant, whereby the Appellant was requested to submit its compliance by 23rd Sep, 2022. In the said notice, it was also specifically informed by the Ld. Commissioner that in the event of failure to comply by due date, the matter will be decided on the basis of material available on record. The said notice also remained un-complied with.

As the Appellant has not given any specific details, as to what actual activities being carried out by it and no credible evidence is submitted in support of its claim, though, specific opportunity of being heard was given, but failed to avail the same, the Ld. Commissioner therefore by observing “that as the Appellant has not uploaded the requisite details despite giving opportunities therefore, it is not possible to ascertain, as to whether the activities are in line with the objects of the trust/institution”, failed to draw any satisfactory conclusion about genuineness of the activities of the Appellant and ultimately rejected the aforesaid application of the Appellant.

5.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt the Ld. Commissioner before deciding the application filed by the Appellant, though given appropriate opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case, however failed to decide the same in the absence of supported material and/ or non-production and non- explaining of documents and activities carried out by the appellant. Hence for 3 Kalyan Riverside Charitable Foundation the just decision of case and for the ends of substantial justice, we are remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say for affording reasonable opportunity being heard to the Appellant.

The Appellant is also directed to join the appellant proceedings and to file the relevant documents before the ld. Commissioner and in case of default the Appellant shall not be entitled for any leniency. Hence

Resultantly is allowed.

6.

Coming to which pertains to challenge to the denial of registration u/s 80G of the Act. Registration u/s 80G is depend upon the grant of registration u/s 12 of the Act, hence this case is also remanded to the file of ld. Commissioner for decisions afresh, with same terms and conditions as set out I.T.A. No. 1055/Mum/2023.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Appellant stands allowed for the statistical proposes.

Orders pronounced in the open court on 20.07.2023.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →