SUPPORT MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -EXEMPTION, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing a reasonable and effective opportunity to the appellant to refute the rejection, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee society applied for 80G recognition. The CIT(E) rejected the application for non-compliance with directions and failure to substantiate the genuineness of activities with credible evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of 80G recognition by the CIT(E) was in violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 08/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The Assessee Society agitates the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [for short “CIT(E)”] dt. 30/11/2022 passed u/s 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”] rejecting to grant for 80G recognition for the reasons of non- compliance with directions and requirement sought.
ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4
Support Multipurpose Society PAN: AAVTS0629L 2. Without reproducing the grounds raised in the present appeal memo, it shall suffice to state that, the sole and substantive grievance of the appeal is directed against the rejection of grant of 80G recognition.
Tersely stated facts borne out of the case records are; the appellant society has e-filed an application in Form No 10AB on 02/05/2022 seeking grant of recognition/registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) under the category of charitable society / institution. The Ld. CIT(E) in-order to verify the objects, genuineness of activities and to ascertain the fulfilment of conditions for granting registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act, was put the appellant to a notice dt. 06/10/2022 thereby calling upon additional documents. Examining the submission, the Ld. CIT(E) without further notice, vide para 5 rejected the application on failure substantiate the genuineness of activities with the credible evidences by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the appellant society is in appeal alleging the action of Ld. CIT(E) as unlawful. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4
Support Multipurpose Society PAN: AAVTS0629L
We have heard the rival contentions; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on record.
Apparently, the preliminary submission of the appellant did not productively prove its eligibility and claim for grant of approval for 80G, as a consequence the Ld. CIT(E) without further opportunity to the appellant rejected the application in violation of principle of natural justice as directed by Clause (ii)(b)(B) of 2nd proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. Thus in our view, the action of the Ld. CIT(E) suffered from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to refute the rejection vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought. It shall be worthy to underlined that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine of natural justice is a facet of fair play in action and no person shall be saddled with a liability without being heard. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4
Support Multipurpose Society PAN: AAVTS0629L
For the aforestated reason, without commenting on the merits of the case, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for according three effective opportunities to the appellant society to refute the rejection vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought.
In result, the appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE as above. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Thursday 08th day of June, 2023.
-S/d- -S/d- S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE; दिन ांक / Dated : 09th day of June, 2023. आदेशकीप्रधिधलधपअग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. The Pr. CIT concerned.
4. The CIT(E) concerned.
5. The DR, ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4
More judgments on Section 80G(5)
- Nikunj Mahendrabhai Adani, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2026/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1491/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1484/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Greenlam Industries LTD And Another vs. The UOI And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026