I SHREE MOGALDHAM MANDIR TRUST BHIMRANA,BHIMRANA DWARKA vs. CIT EXEMPTION AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD VEJALPUR

For the sake of convenience, we first take up ITA No.25/RJT/2025.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust filed an application for seeking approval under clause-iii of the first proviso to Section-80G(5) of the Act. During the course of examination of the application the Ld. CIT(E) issued notices calling for various details and documents as prescribed under rule 11AA(2) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. However, according to the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee failed to comply with the notices and did not furnish the requisite details. Consequently, the application filed for seeking of approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act was rejected and the provisional approval granted earlier also stood cancelled.

Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing Ld. AR submitted that during the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee could not furnish the supporting documents required to substantiate its claim due to failure and negligence on the part of consultant engaged by the assessee. It was further submitted that assessee is now in possession of all the relevant documents and is ready to furnish the same if one more opportunity is granted accordingly it was prayed that the matter may be restored to file the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E), fairly submitted that he has not serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), subject to the condition that assessee’s will file supported documents during the remand proceeding.

We have heard, the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record. We notices that application of the assessee was rejected primary on account of non-furnishing of the supporting documents and non-compliance with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). Considering the explanations offered by the assessee and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair place we set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to examine the application afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the supporting documents and details as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(E) and shall participate in the remand proceeding. Thus, ITA No.25/RJT/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose.

As regard ITA No.750 /RJT/2026, both party fairly submitted that facts and circumstances involved therein are identical to those considered by asking in ITA No.25/RJT/2025, the only difference is that the appeal relates to rejection of registration u/s 12A(i)(ac)(iii) of the Act since, the issues involved is identical and are findings in ITA No.25/RJT/2025 applied mutatis mutandis to this appeals as well. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.