SHI vs. HANTI SNEHALAY SEVABHAVI SANSTHA, ALIBAG,ALIBAG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 271/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 20235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, following its previous order on a similar issue, restored the matter of Section 80G registration back to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises from the CIT (Exemptions) order rejecting its application for Section 80G registration. The rejection was based on the assessee not submitting required information. A similar issue regarding Section 12AA registration for the same assessee was previously remanded by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the Section 80G registration application without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 12AA

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 BENCH “B” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 01.05.2023Pronounced: 01.05.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal arises against the CIT (Exemptions), Pune’s Din and Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/ 1048373711(1), dated 30.12.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 11AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Learned counsel at the outset submitted that there is a delay of 09 days in filing the appeal and prayed for condonation of the delay by filing an affidavit. Hon’ble apex

2 ITA.No.271/PUN./2023 court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We, therefore, condone the impugned delay and take-up the instant appeal for adjudication on merits.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing the learned CIT (Exemptions) order under challenge herein has rejected the assessee’s sec.80G registration filed on 06.06.2022 inter alia holding therein that it had not submitted the required information and details during the course of proceedings before him. It further emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this tribunal’s very recent order dated 05.04.2023 passed in assessee’s appeal ITA.No.234/ PUN./2023 itself has already restored the issue of its sec.12AA registration back to the CIT (Exemptions) as under :

“3. Concisely stated facts borne out of the case records are; the appellant has e-filed an application in Form No 10A on 06/06/2022 seeking grant of registration u/s 12AA under the category of charitable trust / institution. The Ld. CIT(E) in-order to verify the objects, activities and to ascertain the fulfilment of conditions for granting registration u/s 12AA of the Act, was put the appellant to a notice dt. 02/09/2022 thereby calling upon

3 ITA.No.271/PUN./2023 additional documents. Perusing the submission, the Ld. CIT(E) without further notice, rejected the application in the event of failure to adduce the sufficient information and documents necessary for the purpose. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is in appeal alleging the action of Ld. CIT(E) as erroneous.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of “ITAT Rules”, perused the material placed on record, case laws relied upon by the appellant as well the respondent and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to either parties.

5.

Ostensibly, the preliminary submission of the appellant did not productively prove its eligibility and claim for grant of approval for 12AA, as a consequence the Ld. CIT(E) without further opportunity to the appellant rejected the application in violation of principle of natural justice as commanded by proviso to section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, thus 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

4 ITA.No.271/PUN./2023 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.

6.

Thus for the aforestated reason, we without commenting on the merits of the case, deem fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for according reasonable & effective opportunity to refute the rejection vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought.”

4. All these intervening factual developments have gone un-rebutted from the department’s side. Faced with this situation, we adopt judicial consistency to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance seeking sec.80G registration as well back to the CIT (Exemptions) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 01.05.2023.

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →