ALUMNI ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17/12/2024 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) whereby the application of the assessee seeking approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 was rejected. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has rejected the application on technical ground for mentioning the section 80G(5)(i) in the application, instead of 80G(5)(iv). She has further submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has not pointed out this defect/mistake in the application before passing the impugned order and therefore, the assessee was not given an opportunity to rectify the mistake if any in the application filed by the assessee. She has referred to the record filed by the assessee in response to the notice issued by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and submitted that the assessee comply with the notices issued by the CIT(E) by filing the relevant record. However, the application was rejected on technical ground not deciding the same on merit. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that an appropriate direction may be passed for deciding the application of the assessee for approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 on merits.

On the other hand, the learned DR has raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for re-consideration and deciding the application on merits.

Having considered the rival submission as well as perusal of the impugned order, we find that earlier the assessee was having registration u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 prior to 1/4/2021 and after the amendment, the assessee again filed the application for approval u/s 80G which was rejected by the CIT (E) while passing the impugned order. The finding of the CIT (E) in para 3 of the impugned order is as under:

Thus, the application was rejected only on the ground that there is a mistake in section mentioned in the application as 80G(5)(i) instead of 80G(5)(iv). It is also apparent from the record that the assessee was also not given defect memo or show-cause notice for rectifying the mistake in the application. Therefore, rejection of the application on this technical ground without giving an opportunity to the assessee to rectify this typographical mistake in the application is not justified. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT (E) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT (E) for reconsideration of the application on merits. The assessee is also directed to rectify the mistake in mentioning the wrong section in the application.

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