OM SIDDHI VIJAY MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1798/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 20254 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause due to the trustee's illness and hospitalization. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted proof of charitable activity, financial statements, and bank statements. However, the registration was rejected by the CIT(E) solely for the want of details of expenditure. The assessee argued that these details were reflected in the financial statements and that a sufficient opportunity to furnish evidence of expenditure was not provided. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is to examine the details of expenditure submitted by the assessee and provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard before deciding the application for registration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Om Siddhi Vijay Mandal, filed an appeal against the order dated 29.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai (CIT(E)) under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenged the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act, submitted in Form 10AB. The assessee contended that all required statements, including proof of charitable activity, financial statements, and bank statements, were submitted. However, the CIT(E) rejected the application for want of details of expenditure, which the assessee argued were reflected in the financial statements. The appeal was filed with a delay of 18 days, attributed to the trustee's illness and hospitalization.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the registration under Section 12AB for want of details of expenditure, when such details were reflected in the financial statements submitted by the assessee? 3. Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the registration under Section 12AB merely for want of details of expenditure without giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to provide the same? Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without appreciating the facts and circumstances. (Ground 1) - All required statements, including proof of charitable activity, financial statements, and bank statements, were submitted. (Ground 2) - The rejection for want of expenditure details was unjustified as these were reflected in the financial statements. (Ground 2) - The rejection was unjustified as a reasonable opportunity to provide expenditure details was not given. (Ground 3) - Copies of invoices relating to expenditure were submitted before the Tribunal. (Para 4) Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Mr. R. A. Dhyani
For Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Hearing: 30.04.2025Pronounced: 15.05.2025

सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 30.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai-/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 29.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”].

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Om Siddhi Vijay Mandal “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(E)] erred in passing an order dated 29.12.2024 and thereby rejecting the application of the Appellant Trust made in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the order dated 29.12.2014 is not justified and the same may be set aside.

2. The CIT (E) failed to appreciate that the Appellant has duly submitted all the documents including proof of charitable activities, financial statements and bank statements in response to the notices issued by CIT(E). However, the registration u/s 12AB has been rejected for want of details of expenditure without appreciating that the same have been reflected in the financial statement of the Appellant. Thus, the order dated 29.12.2014 is not justified and the same may be set aside.

3.

The CIT(E) is not justified in rejecting the registration under section 12AB of the Act merely for want of details of expenditure incurred by the Appellant without giving a reasonable opportunity to provide the same. Thus, the order dated 29.12.2024 passed by the CIT(E) may be set aside.”

3. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining that the trustee who is looking after the compliance work of the assessee trust was unwell and hospitalised at the time when the order dated 02.12.2024 rejecting the registration was sent on the Email ID of the trust by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, there was some delay in taking action to file the appeal before the due date. In view of the explanation submitted by the assessee, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for the delay of 18 days, which is hereby condoned.

4.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application for registration in Form 10AB, which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 29.12.2024. Further, it is seen that the assessee furnished partial details in response to the notice issued by Ld. CIT(A). However, despite the fact that the assessee had duly submitted the proof of charitable activity, financial statements, bank statements and other details sought by the Ld. CIT(A), the Om Siddhi Vijay Mandal registration was rejected merely for want of details of expenditure incurred. It has been submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to furnish evidence of expenditure incurred, and has filed copies of invoices relating to the expenditure before us.

5.

In view of the above facts, in the interest of natural justice, we hereby restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after examining the details of the expenditure submitted by it. Needless to add, the assessee should be given due opportunity of being heard before deciding the application for registration.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2025.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →