SATYAM SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY,DAMAN vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Since these appeals relate to the same assessee and are interconnected, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

We would first take up appeal relating to registration u/s 12AB and thereafter appeal relating to approval u/s 80G.

At the outset, we would like to re-produce the “Annexure” forming part of the order passed by Ld. CIT(E):

During hearings before us, the Ld. AR referred to the above order and submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has passed ex-parte order while granting only one opportunity to the assessee on 18.02.2026, which the assessee could not avail. It was further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without examining assessee’s application on merits. It was also emphasised that the registration u/s 12A/12AB is fundamental and necessary for the existence and functioning of assessee who is engaged in charitable/religious activities for the benefit of the public. It was further submitted that the assessee is ready with the requisite details and documents for making an effective representation before Ld. CIT(E). It was also assured that if one more opportunity is given, the assesee shall fully co-operate and make effective representation before Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, it was prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play, the present matter be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for a meritorious adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee.

Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(E). He submitted that the assessee voluntarily filed application to Ld. CIT(E) seeking registration u/s 12A/12AB, therefore it was incumbent upon assessee to stay diligent and make representation before Ld. CIT(E) when called upon. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has given opportunity to assessee but the assessee failed to avail the same. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(E) could not get necessary satisfaction for granting registration due to the failure of assessee. He, therefore, submitted that

We have considered the rival submissions of both sides and carefully perused the case file including the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E). We find that that the rejection of the application by Ld. CIT(E) is primarily on account of non-compliance by the assessee in furnishing the requisite details and documents. At the same time, on a perusal of Column No. 10 of the impugned order (main body of Form No. 10AD) passed by Ld. CIT(E), the Ld. CIT(E) appears to have granted only one opportunity to assessee, thus the assessee did not get sufficient opportunities. Considering the nature of proceeding relating to grant of registration u/s 12A/12AB, which has significant consequences for the assessee and in the interest of justice and fair play and also having regard to the fact that the remanding of this matter to the file of Ld. CIT(Exemption) would not cause any prejudice to the revenue/respondent, we are of the view that the assessee should be granted one more effective opportunity to substantiate its application. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore this matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh consideration. The Ld. CIT(E) shall examine the application afresh after providing reasonable and adequate opportunities of being heard to assessee. The assessee is also directed to make representation to Ld. CIT(E) and furnish all requisite details and documents including those prescribed under Rule 17A(2) without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Page 5 of 8

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

At the outset, we would like to re-produce the “Annexure” forming part of the order passed by Ld. CIT(E):

During hearings before us, the Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application for grant of approval u/s 80G(5) precisely on the footing that the assessee does not have valid registration u/s 12A/12AB. Thus, the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E) is consequential to the matter of section 12A/12AB. The Ld. AR therefore prayed that when the matter of section 12A/12AB is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E), as a consequence this matter of section 80G(5) ought to be remanded to the Ld. CIT(E) for a meritorious adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee.

Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He submitted that when the assessee does not have valid registration u/s 12A/12AB, the Ld. CIT(E) has validly rejected assessee’s application for approval u/s 80G(5). He requested to uphold the impugned order.

We have considered the rival submissions of both sides and carefully perused the case file including the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E). We find that the rejection of the application for approval u/s 80G(5) is consequential to the rejection of the application for registration u/s 12A/12AB. Since, in earlier part of this order, we have already set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) in respect of registration u/s 12A/12AB and restored that matter to Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, the order rejecting approvals u/s 80G(5) cannot survive independently. Accordingly, we also set aside the impugned order relating to the approval u/s 80G(5) and restore

Accordingly, this appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.