ABARAN FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, UNITY BUILDING BENGALURU

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, hereinafter referred as the CIT(E) in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, facts, weight of evidence, probabilities and circumstances of the case. 2. The Hon’ble CIT(E) erred in not providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The learned CIT(E) passed an order rejecting the application without seeking any additional data before rejecting the application made for registration under section 80G(5). Adequate opportunity of being heard is sin-non-quo and failing which the entire order would be bad in law. Further, the Hon’ble CIT(E) failed to observe the principle audi alteram partem. Reliance is placed on order passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in case of Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403(SC). 3. The Hon’ble CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application made for registration under section 80G(5) without issuing a show cause notice proposing to reject the application made and without granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is in violation of principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case. We wish to rely on the order of Honorable High Court of Karnataka in case of Sithappana Halli Bychappa Padmanabha Gowda vs. Income Tax Officer (2024). 4. The Hon’ble CIT(E) erred in not following the prescribed procedure for rejecting the application as per section 80G before passing the rejection order by not providing the opportunity of being heard. Reliance is placed on an order passed by the Honorable High Court of Allahabad in case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India. 5. The Hon’ble CIT(E) erred in disregarding the information and documents submitted by the appellant while rejecting the application for registration under sections 80G. In the order, the AO incorrectly stated that the appellant had submitted only bank statement and form 10AC, even though the financial statements for 2 years, along with audit report in form 10BB and details of the trustees of the trust, were duly attached. 6. The Hon’ble CIT(E) failed to verify the documents and supporting materials submitted by the appellant. Additionally, the AO did not demonstrate the intent to approve the application, as there was no proper examination of the details provided by the appellant. The appellant had submitted Form 10BB for the last three financial years in which financials are attached and uploaded the financial statements while applying for registration. However, the AO erroneously stated that the appellant had not submitted the financials, failing to properly verify the documents. The order, hence deserved to be annulled. Reliance is placed on the order passed by the Pune tribunal bench in case of Suprinit Tradinvest Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2023).

The Hon’ble CIT(E) erred in rejecting the appellant’s application for registration under sections 80G without providing adequate reasons. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Pune tribunal bench in case of Kunashni Foundation vs. CIT(E) and order passed by the Indore tribunal bench in case of Aatman Prakash Mental Health Foundation vs. CIT(E)(2023), where it held that, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) had not provided sufficient reasons for the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, underscoring the necessity of a fair evaluation process. 8. The Hon’ble CIT(E) erred in stating that the appellant is not carrying charitable activities without appreciating the appellant is carrying on Charitable Activities on facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Hon’ble CIT(E) erred in ignoring that Charitable Activities were carried out by the Trust and the sole reason for rejection was that the details were not furnished ignoring that the details called for were furnished and no letter or show cause notice was issued seeking for additional documents and hence without seeking for any additional documents, the rejection of application is bad in law on facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any grounds of appeal. 11. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeals may be allowed and justice rendered. 3. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that in compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(E), the assessee provided partial details and undertook that, given another opportunity, the assessee shall furnish all the details in support of its claim of registration under section 80G of the Act.