SURESH RAJ JASKANWAR JAIN SURANA FOUNDATION,VIVEKANAND PURI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4781/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 April 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) to decide the application afresh after considering all documents and providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.

What were the facts?

The Assessee filed an application in form No. 10AB for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) for failing to provide sufficient documentary evidence and explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemption) rightly rejected the application without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and verifying the documents submitted by the Assessee.

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, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: CA Neetu Jain, CA Mohit Chaudhary, CA Harish Chaudhary and Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Jaya Choudhary, CIT DR
Hearing: 16/04/2025Pronounced: 17/04/2025
1.

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(E)’ for short) dated 24/09/2024.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, the Appellant filed application in form No. 10AB for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) before the Ld. CIT(Exemption), Delhi. The application filed by the Appellant came to be rejected by the CIT(Exemption) vide order dated 24/09/2024, which has been called in question in the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, the Ld. CIT(E) has passed the order impugned without affording adequate opportunity to be heard and the same is in violation of principals of natural justice.

Thus, sought for allowing the appeal.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that even after providing ample opportunities, the applicant has submitted all the documents as required by the Ld. CIT(E), thus, the Ld. CIT(E) rightly rejected application filed by the Appellant. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(E) the application has been rejected on the ground that the claim of the Appellant cannot be verified as it has failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence and explanation to substantiate the claim of the Appellant. It is the case of the Assessee has provided all the documents and also clarification sought by the Ld. CIT(E), however, the Ld. CIT(E) failed to examined the same. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the application afresh after considering all the documents produced by the Appellant and after considering the submissions of the Appellant and pass the order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce all the document as required by the Ld. CIT(E) to substantiate it’s the claim.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th 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 →