BRAHMAN SABHA,THANE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

1.1. There is a delay 9 days in filing the appeal. Perusal of the Assessment Year: 2022-23 record shows that the appeal was filed with Pune, Benches. In response to the defect notice, dated 05.01.2022, issued by the registry, the Appellant has filed reply, dated 10.01.2023, wherein it has been explained that appeal was filed within limitation on 29.11.2022 before Pune Benches, of the Tribunal on account of information/belief that the jurisdiction lay with the Pune Benches of the Tribunal. The appeal was received by registry at Pune and thereafter, forwarded to registry at Mumbai since the jurisdiction was with Mumbai, Benches of the Tribunal. We note that copy of the aforesaid forwarding letter issued by the registry at Pune is on record and has been perused. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the delay of 9 days in filing the appeals is condoned.

The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal:

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Departmental Representative appraised the Bench about the adjournment application moved by the Appellant. On perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant we noted that the Appellant has, inter alia, contended that the Appellant was not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(E) has passed the order without application of mind. After perusing the record we rejected the adjournment 2

In response to the query from the Bench in relation to opportunity granted by the CIT(E) to the Appellant to make out his case, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Appellant failed to furnish necessary details and documents to prove the nature of activities carried on by the Appellant despite sufficient opportunities having been granted to the Appellant. He submitted that CIT(E) has returned clear finding that despite service of notice the Appellant failed to comply with the same and furnish any tangible material including note on the activities carried out by the Appellant specifically asked for by the CIT(E). Therefore, the CIT(E) was correct in rejecting the application seeking approval filed by the Appellant and the contention of the Appellant that reasonable opportunity was not granted is without any merit. He relied upon the order passed by the CIT(E) in order to support his contention.

We have perused the material on record and have taken into consideration the submissions advanced by the Learned Departmental Representative and written submission, dated 30.01.2023, filed by the Appellant.

The Appellant is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 with registration No. A/52 dated 06.01.1953, and has also been granted registertion under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act for Assessment Year 2022-23 to Assessment Year 2026-27. The Appellant-trust was also 3

We find that 2 notices were issued to the Appellant by the CIT(E). Both the notices were served on the Appellant through Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal. First notice, dated 03.08.2022, was issued fixing 18.08.2022 as the date for compliance. In compliance with the same, the Appellant filed response. A copy of e-proceedings response acknowledgement bearing acknowledgment number 430901861170822 has been placed on record. Thereafter, the second notice dated 17.09.2022 was issued fixing 23.09.2022 as the date for compliance. In compliance with the same, the Appellant filed response. A copy of e-proceedings response acknowledgement bearing acknowledgment number 502654051170922 has been placed on record. A perusal of the aforesaid e-proceedings response acknowledgement shows that a number of documents were annexed to the same which, inter alia, including copy of the trust deed and the financials for the financial year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. A perusal of order passed by the CIT(E) impugned by way of present appeal shows that no reference has been made to the response submitted by the Appellant. The reply/documents furnished by the Appellant have not been considered by the CIT(E). We are also of the view that sufficient opportunity of being heard has not been granted to the Appellant and the Appellant has been, in effect, proceeded ex-parte. We, therefore, set aside the 4

In result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10.02.2023.