Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a charitable trust, applied for regularization of provisional registration under Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application, citing non-response to notices.
Held
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on notices sent to an incorrect email address, violating the principle of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the registration application was valid when notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, thus denying a proper opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
10(23C), 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 26.08.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune
[hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(E)”], wherein the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the appellant‟s application for regularization of provisional registration granted on 24.03.2023 u/s 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟).
The brief facts as culled out from the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) are that the appellant/assessee is a charitable trust vide Trust Deed dated 01.03.1995 carried out institution works in the fields of education and literacy arts. The assessee was duly registered u/s 10(23C) of the Act for past and even after introduction of new registration, the assessee was registered as under:-
SN Form Date of Filing Date of Registration No. Period No. Provisional approval 1 10A 09/02/2019 09/07/2021 AACTK4976FC20206 AY 2021-22 to AY 2023-24 2 10A 16/03/2023 24/03/2023 AACTK4976FC20221 AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26 3 10AB 24/03/2023 26/08/2023 Ack (Rejected) 992236190240323 4 10AB 21/10/2024 Requirement called for
The Appellant had filed application in form 10A for registration under section 10(23C) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 16/03/2023 for which the Page | 2
provisional registration certificate was issued on 24/03/2023. Since the trust is running Since 1995, therefore, appellant filed Application under form 10AB for regularization of Certificate vide application No CIT Exemption, Pune/2023-24/12AA/11052 in Form 10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act. The said application was rejected on the ground that appellant has not responded to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) on different dates for compliance /requirements.
4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(E), assessee preferred the present appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application of the trust under section 12AB for registration under Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the trust had complied with all the requirement of the provision of the Income Tax Act.
2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application of the trust under section 12AB for registration under Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing fair opportunity of being heard as the notices were issued on incorrect email id. Page | 3
3. Ground 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal.
We have heard Ld AR and DR and examined the record. At the outset, it is pointed out by Ld. AR that the impugned order passed by Ld CIT(E) suffers from miscarriage of justice as the application has been rejected without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and no notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(E) for compliance to the assessee. Ld. AR stated that the notices issued through emails were wrongly sent at email ID ashokdsalve@gsmil.com instead of correct email ID i.e. ashokdsalve@gmail.com which is evident from page no. 16-17 of the paper book as wrong email ID whereas the correct email Id mentioned at page no. 9 and 10 of Form 10AB. Ld. AR further put reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune in wherein the facts and circumstances are exactly similar and the Coordinate Bench has remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to accord a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant by serving notices on such registered email ID and decide the matter afresh.
6. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the impugned order of Ld. CIT(E) and stating that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. It is evident that the email address on notices issued through emails has wrongly mentioned email ID i.e. ashokdsalve@gsmil.com instead of correct email ID i.e. ashokdsalve@gmail.com which is evident from page no. 16-17 of the paper book as wrong email ID whereas the correct email Id mentioned at page no. 9 and 10 on Form 10AB. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune in has decided the issue on similar facts and circumstances, the relevant finding is extracted below:-
Per contra, from page 5 and 10 of paper book filed by the appellant we observed that, both these former notices were sent by the Ld. CIT(E) on email-id’s which are different than the one registered with jurisdictional assessing officer, as evident form page 11 of paper book. Undisputedly, the non-compliance is attributable to lack of effective notice to the appellant, thus absence of reasonable opportunity.
5. In our view in the matter of registration, a reasonable and effective opportunity to the appellant is necessary to protect against arbitrary rejection by the registering authority. This also ensures that negative observations (if any) are negated by credible evidences by the appellant. Any proceedings culminated without effective notice and opportunity would
be violative of principle of natural justice, which de-facto turns the proceedings bad in law and therefore deserving to be set-aside.
In view of the aforestated discussion and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in ‘Sanatan Dharm Mahaveer Dal Vs CIT’ reported in 252 ITR 46, the impugned proceedings culminated in violation of principles of natural justice are in our considered view deserves to be set- aside as contra-legem. In the event, without offering any comment on merits of the case, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to accord a reasonable opportunity to the appellant by serving notice/s on such registered email-id and to decide the issue of grant of 80G recognition a fresh in accordance with law, preferably in three effective hearings.
7. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.
In these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune we set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication of the case of assessee after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appellant/assessee shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(E) within 90 days of this order. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.04.2025.