NAYEE UDAAN,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2850/PUN/2024

Nayee Udaan,
Plot No.15, House No.677,
Near
Shakum
Maruti
Mandir, R. Navnarayan
Peth- 411030. PAN : AAABN0839N
Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune.
Appellant

Respondent

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act on 21.06.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of Assessee by : Shri Jasraj Sutar
Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Date of hearing
: 14.08.2025
Date of pronouncement : 26.08.2025
2
the assessee and fulfillment of conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act, a notice was issued through
ITBA portal on 18.07.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification on or before 02.08.2024. In reply to the said notice, the desired information was furnished by the assessee.
On verification of the information furnished by the assessee, Ld.
CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies, therefore, issued another notice on 26.11.2024 and asked the assessee to furnish various other details on or before 03.12.2024. Since the assessee did not comply to the notice dated 26.11.2024 and has not furnished any explanation in reply to the above notice, Ld. CIT, Exemption,
Pune was of the opinion that the condition (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act is not fulfilled and accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected and the provisional approval granted on 19.01.2023 under clause (iv) to first proviso to section 80G(5) of the IT Act was also cancelled. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
3. Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. Ld. AR submitted before us that sufficient time was not provided by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune to comply with the notice.
3
It was claimed that undisputedly the time given to the appellant for compliance was less than time stated in Standard Operating
Procedure, which is against the Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) issued by CBDT dated 19.11.2020 wherein minimum period of 7 days is required to be given to the assessee to comply with notices from the date of issue of the notice. In this regard, Ld. AR relied on the order passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dauphin Travel Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in W.P.(C)
8870/2023 & CM Nos.33516-17/2023 order dated 05.07.2023
wherein taking note of this SOP it was held that the grant of insufficient time to respond the notice violates the principles of natural justice and therefore Hon’ble High Court set-aside the assessment. Accordingly, Ld. AR submitted that it is clear that appellant was given unreasonably very short period of time to respond to the notice, which is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set- aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, &
requested to remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the application for registration u/s 80G of the IT Act afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
4
4. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the order passed Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, & requested to confirm the same.
5. In this regard, we find that the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act was rejected for non-compliance form the side of the assessee. However, in the light of order passed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in the case of Dauphin Travel Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) we find force in the above arguments of the counsel of the assessee that the time allotted was not according to SOP directed by CBDT and considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set- aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the issue afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce relevant documents/submissions/evidences in support of application for approval u/s 80G of the IT Act, otherwise Ld. CIT,
Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
5
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 26th day of August, 2025. (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 26th August, 2025. Sujeet
आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant.
2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent.
3. The CIT, Exemption, Pune.
4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned.
5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच,
पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.

////
Senior Private Secretary

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.