Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee-trust, DHATRI, a charitable institution, applied for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, using Form 10AB. The CIT(E) rejected the application, citing dissatisfaction with submissions. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was also dismissed.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing adequate opportunity of hearing or properly considering the evidence. It also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in a casual manner. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) and CIT(A) were justified in rejecting/dismissing the application for Section 80G registration without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and proper consideration of the evidence submitted by the assessee-trust.
Sections Cited
80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
For Assessee : Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate For Revenue : MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. :
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee-Trust against the order dated 22.10.2024 of the learned CIT(E) in rejecting the application filed by the assessee trust in Form- 10AB for registration u/sec.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
2 ITA.No.1393/Hyd./2024 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee-trust is a charitable institution and has filed application in Form No.10AB seeking for registration u/sec.80G of the Act. The learned CIT(E) had called for certain information from the assessee-trust. In response, the assessee-trust had also furnished relevant information / documents. However, the learned CIT(E) being not satisfied with the submissions made by the appellant-trust, had rejected the application in Form-10AB for registration u/sec.80G of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee trust is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the learned CIT(E) had simply rejected the application of the appellant trust filed in Form- 10AB for registration u/sec.80G of the Act. In support of this contention, she drew the attention of the Bench with respect to the observations of the learned CIT(A) in para-3 of the order wherein the learned CIT(E) observed that, the application in Form-10AB is to be decided in time bound 3 ITA.No.1393/Hyd./2024 manner and non-submission of mandatory information, the present application in Form-10AB for registration u/sec.80G is infructuous and herewith rejected as non- maintainable. She, accordingly, submitted that, adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant-trust has not been provided by the learned CIT(E) and, therefore, one more opportunity may please be provided to the appellant trust to substantiate it’s case by remitting the matter back to the learned CIT(E) for afresh adjudication.
MS. M. Narmada, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of learned CIT(E) submitted that, the assessee-trust has made the application for registration in Form-10AB for registration u/sec.80G of the Act. She further submitted that, since the assessee trust has failed to prove it’s onus of charitable activities carried- out by it with supporting documents to the satisfaction of the learned CIT(E), he rejected the application filed by the assessee trust u/sec.80G of the Act and that the order of the learned CIT(E) is in accordance with law. She accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT(E)
4 ITA.No.1393/Hyd./2024 be confirmed since it is not a fit case for reconsideration by the learned CIT(E).
We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that, admittedly, the assessee trust has made an application in Form-10AB for registration u/sec.80G of the Act. However, on perusal of the order of the learned CIT(E), we find that, the learned CIT(E) had not provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee trust and simply rejected the application filed by the assessee trust in Form- 10AB for registration u/sec.80G of the Act, without considering the documentary evidences filed by the assessee trust which is evident from para-3 of his order itself where there were no discussion about the submissions made by the assessee trust and the reasons for decision by the learned CIT(E) for rejection of registration of assessee trust u/sec.80G of the Act. Further, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the application filed by the assessee in a casual manner by repeating or copying the contents from some other order which is evident from the findings in para-3 of learned 5 ITA.No.1393/Hyd./2024 CIT(E)’s order where the learned CIT(E) observed that, the application in Form-10AB is to be decided in time bound manner and non-submission of mandatory information, the present application in Form-10AB for registration u/sec.80G is infructuous and herewith rejected as non- maintainable. Further, the learned CIT(E) never discussed the objects of the appellant trust and activities carried-out by the assessee trust during the relevant assessment year. From the above order of the learned CIT(E), it is undisputedly clear that the learned CIT(E) dismissed the application filed by the assessee without even considering the relevant application filed in Form-10AB and other evidences filed in support of the application. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(E) and restore this issue back to the file of learned CIT(E) with a direction to re- decide the issue afresh, after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
6 ITA.No.1393/Hyd./2024 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.05.2025.