Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Siddhanta Knowledge Foundation, filed an application in Form No.10AB for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, which was rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 45 days, which was sought to be condoned. The assessee also presented additional evidences to the ITAT that were not submitted to the CIT(E) earlier.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 45-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided by the assessee as reasonable. It admitted the additional evidences as *bonafide* and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a *de novo* adjudication of the Section 80G approval application, allowing for consideration of the new and any further evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the Section 80G approval application, and whether the ITAT should admit additional evidence and remand the case for a fresh consideration by the CIT(E).
Sections Cited
80G, 2(15), 25, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI HON’BLE AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member): This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against order of CIT(E), Chennai dated 26.12.2024, rejecting Form No.10AB filed for seeking approval u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’).
At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 45 days. The order of CIT(E) dated 26.12.2024 Siddhanta Knowledge Foundation :- 2 -: was communicated to the assessee on 26.12.2024 as per Form 36.
The director of the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating the following reasons:-
“4. I state that the CIT(E) had passed the impugned order on 26.12.2024 and the same was communicated to the Petitioner via e-mail. An appeal challenging this order ought to have been filed on or before 28.02.2025 but is being filed with a delay. The reason for the delay is that the Petitioner was unaware of the impugned order as the same had been served on the Petitioner's representative's e-mail ID (mrnathca@yahoo.com), which was not the designated e-mail ID for communication. The Petitioner then approached the Department in person, who informed that an order had already been passed. The Petitioner then checked its e-filing portal and found that the order had been passed on 26.12.2024 itself. Hence, the delay occurred in filing the appeal.”
When these facts were confronted to ld.CIT-DR, he objected for condoning the delay. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, interest of justice condone the delay and admit the appeal.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of CIT(E) is erroneous and bad in law, as the same is opposed to the provisions of law and facts of the case,
2. The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the approval u/s 80G of the Act without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for various incorrect reasons without providing the appellant an opportunity to rebut his allegations.
4. The CIT(E) erred in dismissing application on incorrect reasoning that activities of the trust do not constituent charitable activities when the appellant has been duly carrying out charitable activities as defined u/s.2(15) of the Act.
Siddhanta Knowledge Foundation :- 3 -: 5. The CIT(E) ought to have seen the main objective of the Appellant is to provide education, which is a charitable purpose u/s.2(15) of the Act.
6. The CIT(E) failed to consider the company itself is incorporated u/s 25 of the Companies Act 1926 for conducting charitable object.
7. The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration on incorrect reasons without considering the objects and facts in a proper manner.
8. There being no discrepancies, the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on the basis of incorrect conclusions arrived at by him.
9. The CIT(E) erred in concluding that no amount has been spent by the appellant towards charity.
Any other ground than may be raised at the time of hearing”
At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee drew our attention to the paper book which is additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal). The Additional evidences are as per index below:-
S. Page Date Documents No. No. 1. 29.07.2023 MOU between Indian Knowledge System and the Appellant 1–3 2. 18.09.2023 Copy of Sanction Letter from Indian Knowledge System 4 & 5 3. 22.11.2024 MOU between M.O.P. Vaishnav College and the Appellant 6–9 Circular of University Grants Commission in 4. 26.03.2025 10 D.F.No.159854/UGC/IKS/2025 5. --- Audited Financials of the Appellant for A.Y. 2023–24 11–33 6. --- Audited Financials of the Appellant for A.Y. 2024–25 34–56 7. --- Letter from Indian Knowledge System Division 57 8. --- List of Scholars with Foundation 58 & 59 Brochure – Indian Knowledge System Courses for Each 9. --- 60–84 Stream Book by the Appellant: "An Introduction to Bharatiya 10. --- 85–157 Knowledge Systems"
Siddhanta Knowledge Foundation :- 4 -: 5. The Ld. AR submitted that additional evidences from pages 1 to 157 were bonafide not filed before the Ld. CIT(E). Hence, in the light of averments made he prayed for admission of additional evidence filed in the form of paper books.
The Ld. DR-CIT was also of the view that if additional evidence is admitted then the matter should be set aside to CIT(E) for fresh consideration and decision thereon.
We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the Paper book containing the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and find that aforesaid evidences which goes to the root of matter were bonafide not filed before the learned CIT(E).
In this view of the matter, we therefore, to do substantial justice admit additional evidences now furnished by the assessee before us for consideration and examination by the Ld. CIT(E). Since the additional evidences in the form of paper book was not filed before the Ld. CIT(E) at the time of deciding the application filed on 28.06.2024 in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act and the same was not examined on the Siddhanta Knowledge Foundation :- 5 -: merit by the ld. CIT(E), we find it fit and proper to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for denovo adjudication of the application filed on 28.06.2024 in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act in the light of the additional evidences as well as any other evidences which may assessee furnish before the ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the asessees is allowed for statistical purposes.