SARVODAYA MARDANI KHEL V SANSKRUTIK SEVA SANSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G 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 29.06.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of 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 12.08.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification on or before 27.08.2024. The assessee did not comply to this notice. Another notice was issued on 04-10-2024 to furnish desired information & the assessee was specifically asked to show cause why the application for approval should not be rejected. Since the assessee did not comply to this notice 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 & accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected and the provisional approval granted on 08.02.2022 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 the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. It is submitted that the information & documents desired by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune could not be handed over to the consultant since the authorized person was sick. Ld. AR submitted that since no reply was furnished before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act was rejected. Ld. AR submitted that the desired information is very well available with the assessee & if one opportunity is provided to him he will be able to produce all such desired information before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, involving the issue of registration u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act & 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.

Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue did not raise any serious objection to the request of the assessee.

In this regard, we find that admittedly two notices were issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune & both the above notices were not complied by the assessee. It is the sole contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that if the assessee has not furnished requisite information/documents on the requisite date, one further opportunity should have been provided to him by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. It was also contended that the authorized person was sick & therefore could not supply the desired documents to the consultant who resultantly could not reply to the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, which consequently resulted in rejection of application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act. 5.1 We find some force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice and without going into the 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 application for approval afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and produce requisite documents/information in support of the application for registration without taking any adjournment under any pretext,