SETH BECHARDAS MANCHAND JAIN SHWET AMBER TRUST,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1029/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 October 20233 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of effective notice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for 80G registration. The CIT(E) rejected the application for non-compliance after issuing notices. The notices were sent to incorrect email addresses, leading to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of an application for 80G registration without providing effective notice and opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Mr Bhuvanesh Kankani
Pronounced: 27/10/2023

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; By present appeal the assessee trust challenged DIN & order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2023-24/1054753345(1) dt. 31/07/2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption, Pune [for short ‘CIT(E)’] passed u/s 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’]

2.

We have heard rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of ‘ITAT-Rules’, perused material placed on record.

1.

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3

Seth Bechardas Manchand Jain Shwet Amber Trust PAN: AAATS8553N 3. We observed that, the appellant trust applied for 80G registration under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act on 16/02/2023. Upon perusal of Form 10AB and accompanying documents, the Ld. CIT(E) by issue of notice dt. 19/05/2023 called upon the appellant to substantiate the existence and genuineness of its activities and to furnish certain information / clarification etc., however assessee trust failed to comply therewith. The assessee vide notice dt. 10/07/2023 was again granted one more opportunity to make good the shortcoming, however this notice also went futile. In the event of failure of appellant to place on records requisite material to enable to arrive at positive satisfaction, the Ld. CIT(E) proceeded on the basis of information on records, and concluded the activities of the appellant lacks genuinity and thus rejected its application.

4.

Per contra, from page 5 and 10 of paper book filed by the appellant we observed that, both these former notices were sent by the Ld. CIT(E) on email-id’s which are different than the one registered with jurisdictional assessing officer, as evident form page 11 of paper book. Undisputedly, the non-compliance is attributable to lack of effective notice to the appellant, thus absence of reasonable opportunity.

5.

In our view in the matter of registration, a reasonable and effective opportunity to the appellant is necessary to protect against arbitrary rejection by the registering authority. This also ensures that negative observations (if any) are negated by credible evidences by the appellant. Any proceedings culminated without effective notice and opportunity would be violative of principle of natural justice, which de-facto turns the proceedings bad in law and therefore deserving to be set-aside.

ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 3

Seth Bechardas Manchand Jain Shwet Amber Trust PAN: AAATS8553N

6.

In view of the aforestated discussion and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in ‘Sanatan Dharm Mahaveer Dal Vs CIT’ reported in 252 ITR 46, the impugned proceedings culminated in violation of principles of natural justice are in our considered view deserves to be set-aside as contra-legem. In the event, without offering any comment on merits of the case, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to accord a reasonable opportunity to the appellant by serving notice/s on such registered email-id and to decide the issue of grant of 80G recognition a fresh in accordance with law, preferably in three effective hearings.

7.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. U/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in open court on this Friday 27th day of October, 2023.

-S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; ददनाांक / Dated : 27st day of October, 2023. आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune (MH-India) 4. The CIT(E),Pune (MH-India) 5. DR, ITAT, Pune Bench ‘B’, Pune 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / By Order, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →