LAXMAN PATWARDHAN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted a reply which was not considered by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee applied for registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(Exemption) rejected these applications due to non-compliance with notices requesting certain documents.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Exemption) rightly rejected the applications without considering the assessee's reply and providing adequate opportunity for hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP : These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dt. 29-09-2022 passed by the CIT (Exemption), Pune, rejecting the approval u/s.80G(5) and the registration u/s.12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’).
Both the appeals are time barred by 229 days. The assessee has filed affidavit in support of the delay. We are convinced with the same. The delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits.
The assessee claims to be engaged in Charitable activities. It filed requisite forms for granting registration u/s.12AA and approval u/s.80G respectively. In order to verify the genuineness of the activities carried out by the assessee, some notices were issued to the assessee through the ITBA Portal on 26-07-2022, 03-08-2022 and 17-09-2022 requiring the uploading of certain documents. In the absence of any compliance, the ld. CIT(Exemption) chose to reject the applications. Against the said rejection, the assessee has approached the Tribunal.
The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had submitted its response to the ld. CIT(E), whose copy has also been placed on record. However, the ld. CIT(E) chose to reject the applications filed by the assessee, without examining such reply. In the given circumstances and considering the prayer of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the issues afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence in support of its point of view in the fresh proceedings.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st September, 2023.
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026