ATMA RAKSHA ARAKKATTALAI,COIMBATORE vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, , CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 294/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 April 2025Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) with all requisite evidence. The appeal was accordingly set aside and remitted back to the CIT(E).

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to the assessee's failure to provide complete details and documentary evidence regarding the genuineness of its activities and expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to submit documents for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act after initial rejection by the CIT(E) due to non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(iii),Section 10AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025

the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Chennai.

2.

The assessee / applicant filed an application on in Form No.10AB seeking approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) on 31.05.2024. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(E) vide show cause notice dated 20.08.2024 requested the assessee to furnish the requisite details and documents and its clarifications.

However, the assessee failed to produce separate books of accounts and provide full and complete details with necessary documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the activities of the trust relating to ‘Consultation Fees, Medical Check-up Fee, Diagnostic Consumables, Doctor Fees, G-Bio Lab Charges and Nurse Fees.

Hence, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application referred supra as not maintainable. Assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

The learned counsel for the assessee pleaded for one more opportunity of hearing before the CIT(E) to substantiate its application with all requisite evidences. The Ld. CIT-DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

4.

We have heard rival submissions and perused records. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before ld.CIT(E) to prosecute the application as referred supra filed in Form 10AB. The ld.AR for the assessee also assured the bench that the assessee will file all necessary requisites/details asked by the ld.CIT(E). Therefore, in the light of above assurance/undertaking we set aside the impugned order and remit the appeal to the file of ld.CIT(E) to hear the application afresh, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the application as per law. The ld. counsel, who appeared also assured the bench that he will ensure that the assessee will prosecute his case diligently with requisite evidences.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2025

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(iii)

All 687 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →