SIGNING HANDS FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2680/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 June 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed (for statistical purpose)

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's subsequent amendment of the impugned object clauses. Since the original rejection was based on these clauses and no opportunity for amendment was given, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits, with a direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a foundation, applied for Section 80G(5) approval, which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) because its Memorandum of Association (MOA) included clauses allowing the utilization of funds outside India or operations abroad. The assessee contended that no opportunity was given to amend these clauses, which they have now done.

What were the issues?

Rejection of Section 80G(5) approval application due to object clauses permitting operations outside India; opportunity for amendment; remand for de novo consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 80G(5),Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order ofLd. CIT(E), Mumbai dated 20.02.2025. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the fact, circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (hereinafter referred as "Ld. CIT(E)") erred in rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB for approval U/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that appellant is violated the statutory provisions of the income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"). The Ld. CIT (E) erred in stating that appellant intends to apply or receive the funds outside India as per the MOA/ Objects. The Ld. CIT (E) erred in stating that appellant ought to have amended the clause of MO/ Objects to align with the provisions of the Act. the Ld. CIT (E) failed to consider the submissions made during the course of proceedings. It is prayed to your honour to allow the approval made U/s 80G of the Act and give necessary directions in this regard.

2. Your appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary on or before the date of hearing.”

2.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.

The Learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that application of assessee for approval of fund under section 80G(5) was rejected by ld. CIT(E) by taking view that certain objects of the assessee trust conveys that its intention to utilise funds of outside India and that there is possibility in future that expenditure may incurred outside India. It was the observation of ld. CIT(E) that assessee trust ought to have amended such clauses to align with provisions of Income Tax Act. The ld AR of the assessee submits that no opportunity was allowed to the assessee to seek amendment of such object clauses, before rejection of application under section 80G(5).

The assessee now has amended all such clauses, amended copy of memorandum of association (objects) is filed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee was not allowed reasonable opportunity before rejection of their application, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) to re-consider the application de novo. The assessee fulfil all requisite condition for obtaining approval under section 80G(5).

3.

On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(E).

4.

We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the order of ld. CIT(E). We find that assessee filed application in Form 10AB for approval of trust under section 80G(5). The application assessee was rejected by ld. CIT(E) pointing out certain clauses of their object which includes “III(B)(1)-To establish and open branches in India or abroad. III(B)(9)- Objects of the company extend to the whole of India or anywhere for the interest of India”. Now, before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently urged that the assessee trust has amended their object/memorandum of association by removing such words “abroad or anywhere” wherever they 2 appear in their object clauses and prayed for consideration of their application.

5.

Considering the fact that assessee has now amended such portion of their object clauses about the places of activities and that application of assessee for approval of fund was not considered on merit, therefore, matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the matter afresh and to pass the order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(E) shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The assessee is also directed to provide all necessary information to prove their object and activities of the ld. CIT(E).

6.

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/06/2025 at the time of hearing.

More judgments on Section 80G

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →