GOOD WORKS INDIA,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2345/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - Good Works India, Commissioner of Income No.292 R 601 KLP Utsav Apartments, Tax(Exemption) Coods Road, Otteri, Chennai Chennai-600 012. [PAN: AAETG6011F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1066650250(1) dated 12.07.2024. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 80G dated 12.07.2024 passed by CIT(E), Chennai.

2.0 The only controversy in the impugned appeal is that the Ld CIT( E) has rejected the application of the assessee for grant of registeration u/s 80 G for the reasons that the assessee had shown its status as a religious trust while filing its online application . Before us the Ld . counsel Page - 1 - of 4 :- 2 -: of the assessee has submitted that the impugned mistake was a case of inadvertent omission by an over sight and that the same may not be made a case for denying the assessee its registration. The Ld DR argued that in the present electronic eco system, the CIT ( E ) has no powers to ignore such mistakes on his own .

3.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material on records. We have noted that a Hon’ble coordinated bench of this tribunal in the case of Save Shakti Foundation in its order vide dated 26/4/2024 held that technical mistakes need to be ignored while considering grant of benefits to an assessee. Thus it was held that “……Upon perusal, it transpires that the assessee is aggrieved by rejection of an application filed by it on 27.09.2023 seeking registration under clause (ii) of first proviso to Sec. 80G(5). The Ld. CIT(Exemptions), vide impugned order dated 07.03.2024, rejected the same on the ground that the assessee was granted provisional approval up-to AY 2024-25. Therefore, the application ought to have been made under clause (iii) 2 instead of clause (ii). The application was held to be not-maintainable which has led to present appeal by the assessee.

Page - 2 - of 4 :- 3 -:

4.0 We have noted the Hon’ble coordinate benches of this tribunal has been taking similar decisions on the impugned subject as in its decision at dated 22/7/24 & dated 28/8/24. We have also noted the fundamental of jurisprudence that when it comes to delivery of justice, substance should always prevail over form. Any unintentional noncompliance to any rule/procedure cannot be a ground for denying the taxpayer a benefit which it otherwise is entitled to. Be that as it may we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one more opportunity to plead its case before the CIT ( E ) . Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT (E) and direct him to readjudicate assesses application for grant of registration u/s 80 G by ignoring the impugned technical mistake of indicating status of trust as an religious trust. He may ask the assesee to provide necessary hard copies of documents vij trust deed etc to effectively establish its status of whether a religious trust or not . Accordingly all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.