← Back to search

DR. ABDULKALAM SEVAK SAMAJ,VELLORE vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

PDF
ITA 1789/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 August 20254 pages

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ीजॉज जॉज के, उपा एवंी जगदीश, लेखा सद' के सम
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1789/ Chny/2025

Dr. Abdulkalam Sevan Samaj,
No.12, Alangayam Vellore Road,
Peddur Vaniyambadi,
Vellore – 635 701. [PAN: AADTD 2966M]

Vs.
The Commissioner of Income
Tax (Exemption),
Chennai.

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

( यथ/Respondent)

अपीलाथ< की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Ms. Sonali, Advocate for Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

>?थ< की ओर से /Respondent by :
Mrs. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
26.08.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
28.08.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai [hereinafter “CIT(E)”] dated 09.12.2025, seeking approval u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).

ITA No.1879/ Chny/2025
Dr. Abdulkalam Sevak Samaj

:- 2 -:

2.

There is a delay of 115 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.

3.

The assessee had filed an application dated 24.06.2024 in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5), seeking approval u/s. 80G of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that the assessee did not furnish requisite details or clarification sought.

4.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not access its e-mail account during the relevant period and, therefore, was unable to file a reply to the notices issued. It was prayed that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be provided to substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(E).

ITA No.1879/ Chny/2025
Dr. Abdulkalam Sevak Samaj

:- 3 -:

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.), on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB, filed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, on account of non-compliance with the notices issued. The Ld. A.R. has explained that the assessee could not respond to the notices due to non-accessibility of its e-mail account. Considering the submissions and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) on the date of hearing without fail and to furnish all requisite details for proper consideration.

ITA No.1879/ Chny/2025
Dr. Abdulkalam Sevak Samaj

:- 4 -:

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28th day of August, 2025 at Chennai (जॉज जॉज के)
(George George K)
उपा / Vice President
(जगदीश)
(Jagadish)
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा सदय
सदय
सदय
सदय /Accountant Member
चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 28th August, 2025. EDN/-
आदेश क ितिल प अ े षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2.  थ/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF

DR. ABDULKALAM SEVAK SAMAJ,VELLORE vs CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI | BharatTax