Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order rejecting its application for registration under section 80G(5) of the Act. The rejection was partly based on the assessee not having a valid registration under section 12A/12AB, which was pending adjudication before the CIT(E). The assessee also faced delays in submitting documents due to communication issues.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the issue of 12A/12AB registration was set aside for denovo adjudication by the CIT(E), the Tribunal also set aside the order u/s.80G(5) to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary details.
Key Issues
Whether the order rejecting 80G(5) registration can be sustained when the underlying 12A/12AB registration issue is pending adjudication. Whether a fresh opportunity should be granted to the assessee to furnish documents.
Sections Cited
80G(5), 12AB, 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
Smiles Foundation, V The CIT Exemption, Shop No.2, 1671/A 170 Sushila s. Pune. Vasant Vihar, Mangalwar Peth, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. PAN: AASTS2069K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Praful S. Shaha – AR Revenue by Shri Amit Bobde – CIT(DR) Date of hearing 12/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 16/06/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.08.2024 rejecting assessee’s application for registration under section 80G(5) of the Act. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. Clarification on Loan from Trustees: We would like to appeal that the loan was taken interest free from the trustee. The intention was to just carry on the activities of the trust without any intention to gain benefit. Hence we request you to consider this fact. Also the appellant has made significant efforts to follow legal requirements, and requests that this matter be reconsidered.
2. Expenditure Clarification: Regarding the expenditures in FY 2020-21 and 2021-22, the trust had been in the process of establishing its activities. Financial limitations and covid scenerio prevented the expenditure of funds during these periods, but concrete activities were conducted from FY 2022-23 onward. The appellant has also provided all the necessary proof of activities for FY 2022-23 and subsequent periods along with the application.
3. Activity Report: The appellant acknowledges that the note on activities was broad and lacks detailed specifics. However, supporting documents for activities undertaken in FY 2022-23 and the identification of beneficiaries of aid will be submitted. Furthermore, the aid provided to Shri Devendra Gaikwad and the support extended to Chandrabhaga Gaushala will be elaborated upon, with proof that the Gaushala is a registered charitable trust. All the relevant documents are attached herewith.
Timely Submission of Documents: The appellant faced delays in gathering and submitting the requested documents within the given timeframe due to non communication. The appellant humbly requests that these circumstances be considered and a new opportunity be provided to reconsider the case.
Prayer: In light of the above, the appellant prays that:
1. 1. The order of rejection of the application for registration under section 12AB and the cancellation of provisional registration be set aside.
2. The appellant be given a further opportunity to furnish the required documents and clarifications in a reasonable time.
3. The appellant's registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, be granted or reinstated.
6. Conclusion: The appellant is committed to ensuring full compliance with the legal provisions governing charitable institutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and is confident that the discrepancies raised can be adequately addressed. We request that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) consider the facts and grant the necessary relief to the appellant.” Delay : 1.1 There is a delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal of 179 days. Assessee has filed an Affidavit of the Trustee. We have perused the Affidavit and we found the there is sufficient and reasonable cause for Delay, therefore, the delay is condoned.
Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Mr.Praful Suresh Shaha, who is one of the trustees appeared along with copy of resolution passed by the trust authorising him to appear and plead before the ITAT. Mr.Shaha submitted that due to paucity of time, Assessee could not file a reply within the time period allowed by ld.CIT(E). He further submitted that ITAT in assessee’s own case in has set-aside the order under section 12A to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. On perusal of the 80G(5) rejection order, we noted that one of the reasons for rejection was that assessee was not having valid 12A Registration. Since the ITAT in has set-aside the issue of Registration u/s.12 r.w.s u/s.12AB of the Act, to the ld.CIT(E), we set-aside the order u/s.80G(5) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee shall file necessary details before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16 June, 2025.