PRASANNA FOUNDATION,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),. PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 629/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 June 20235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the applications violated the principle of natural justice by not providing a real, reasonable, and effective opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was deprived of adequate time to substantiate its claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12AB and recognition under Section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected both applications without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and refute the grounds for rejection.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for 12AB registration and 80G recognition by the CIT(E) was justified without affording the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii),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. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 262 ITR 377
    262 ITR 377 · 2003 · HC
    49 citing

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

Before: HON’BLE SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe
Pronounced: 08/06/2023

बनाम / V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Exemption, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Anil Sathe Revenue by : Shri Rajiv 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; These two appeals of the assessee trust are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [for short “CIT(E)”] dt. 31/03/2023 passed u/s 12AB(4) & 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”] rejecting to grant for 12AA registration and 80G recognition to the appellant trust.

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 5

Prasanna Foundation & 629/PUN/2023 PAN: AAETP1367M 2. Since facts of these two appeals are similar, related and interconnected, for the purpose of convenience and brevity are head together for consolidated order.

3.

Without duplicating the grounds raised

in this bunch of two appeals, it shall suffice to state that, the substantive grievance of the appellant trust is directed against the rejection to grant of 12AA registration as well as 80G recognition violating the principle of natural justice.

4. Pithily stated facts borne out of the case records are; the appellant has e-filed an application in Form No 10AB on 17/09/2022 seeking grant of registration u/s 12AB under the category of charitable trust / institution and an application in Form 10AB on 18/09/2022 for recognition u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) in-order to verify the objects, activities and to ascertain the fulfilment of conditions for granting registration u/s 12AB and recognition u/s 80G of the Act, was put the appellant to a notices dt. 18/01/2023 and 19/01/2023 respectively, which were replied by ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 5

Prasanna Foundation & 629/PUN/2023 PAN: AAETP1367M the assessee trust through written submission accompanying certain evidential document through online Income Tax department web portal.

5.

In so far as the application for 12AB is concerned, for the want of evidences in support of activities purported to be engaged by the trust, after putting the assessee to show-case notice, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejecting the said application cancelled the provisional registration granted u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. Consequent to the aforestated denial to grant registration u/s 12AB of the Act, the application for 80G is also found rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) by an impugned order of even date.

6.

Thus aggrieved by the aforestated rejections, the appellant is in appeal alleging the action of Ld. CIT(E) as violative of principle of audi alteram partem.

7.

We have heard both the parties to the appeals; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of “ITAT Rules”, perused the material placed on record which suggest that, the preliminary submission of the appellant trust ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 5

Prasanna Foundation & 629/PUN/2023 PAN: AAETP1367M did not effectively prove its eligibility and claim for grant of approval for 12AB, as a consequence the Ld. CIT(E) without further opportunity to the appellant trust rejected the applications in violation of principle of natural justice as commanded by proviso to section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) and by clause (ii)(b)(B) of 2nd proviso to 80G(5) of the Act r.w. proviso to rule 11AA(5) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

8.

In our considered 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. In the light of decision of High court of Patna in ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Trust (2003) 262 ITR 377 (Pat)’ we hold that, rejection of application is unjustified as the assessee ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 5

Prasanna Foundation & 629/PUN/2023 PAN: AAETP1367M deprived of reasonable opportunity and time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate its claim for registration u/s 12AB and recognition of 80G.

9.

In the light of aforestated discussion, without commenting on the merits of the case, we deem it fit to remand these matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for according two effective opportunities to comply with the direction or the requirements vis-à-vis to refute the rejection to as the case may be.

10.

In result, both these appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 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 : 08th day of June, 2023. आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT(E), Pune 5. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 5

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →