Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under section 80G(5) of the IT Act. The CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application due to non-compliance with notices, citing discrepancies and lack of proper response within the given timeframes.
Held
The Tribunal found that the time provided to the assessee to respond to the notices was insufficient and violated principles of natural justice, as per the SOP issued by the CBDT and a High Court ruling. The order of the CIT was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was granted sufficient time to comply with the notices issued by the CIT for registration under Section 80G(5) of the IT Act, and if not, whether the rejection order violates principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
80G(5), 10AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Nayee Udaan, Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Plot No.15, House No.677, Near Shakum Maruti Mandir, R. Navnarayan Peth- 411030. PAN : AAABN0839N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Jasraj Sutar Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 14.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 26.08.2025 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.
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 (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.
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.
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. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the order passed Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, & requested to confirm the same.
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.