REVOLUTION FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5607/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the material already on record and did not provide a meaningful opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for approval under section 80G was rejected by the CIT(E) after issuing only one questionnaire. The assessee contended that most of the requested information was already provided and they were not given an effective opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the available material and afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before rejecting the 80G approval application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Respondent: Shri Azhar Kabir, SR DR
Hearing: 10/07/2026Pronounced: 10/07/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, whereby the assessee’s application seeking approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been rejected.

2 ITA No.5607/Mum/2026 Revolution Foundation 2. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) rejected the applications after issuing only a single questionnaire-cum-notice. It was submitted that a substantial part of the information sought in the said questionnaire had already been furnished by the assessee along with the original applications and supporting documents. However, the learned CIT(E), without considering the material already available on record and without granting any further effective opportunity of hearing, proceeded to reject the applications. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The learned Departmental Representative fairly left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It appears that the impugned order has been passed after issuance of only one questionnaire-cum-notice. The contention of the assessee that a substantial part of the information sought had already been furnished along with the applications has not been examined in the impugned orders. In our considered opinion, before rejecting application seeking approval under section 80G, the authority is required to consider the material already available on record and, if any further clarification or document is required, afford an effective and meaningful opportunity to the assessee to furnish the same. Since such

3 ITA No.5607/Mum/2026 Revolution Foundation an exercise has not been undertaken, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to restore the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E).

4.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to adjudicate the applications afresh in accordance with law after considering the entire material already available on record as well as such further documents as may be furnished by the assessee. The learned CIT(E) shall afford due and effective opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh speaking order. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the proceedings and furnish all requisite documents and explanations as may be called for.

5.

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 10th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 10/07/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

4 ITA No.5607/Mum/2026 Revolution Foundation Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 80G

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →