MORYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,PUNE vs. C.I.T, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Thus, the assessee has failed to furnish the details called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to verify the genuineness of activities of the trust / institution and to verify the compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust / institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects.

It is clear from the above that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to comply, but it has not complied to the same. It seems that the assessee is not having any supporting documents / evidence to submit. The assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the undersigned is unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about genuineness of activities of the assessee and the compliance to the requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust / institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects. Therefore, the undersigned has left no alternative but to reject the application.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:

Admittedly, the facts of the case in are similar to that of ITA No.2654/PUN/2024 narrated above. Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No.2653/PUN/2024 which read as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption has erred in rejecting the Application filed under Clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, without granting adequate opportunity of being heard. The Appellant be granted opportunity to represent its case effectively. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions erred in cancelling the provisional registration granted under clause (iv) of first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption has erred in not giving registration Under Clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act to the Appellant. 4. The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, revise, substitute, delete or alter any/all of the above grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

The Ld. AR submitted that non-compliance to the notice(s) issued by the Ld. CIT(E) was not intentional. He submitted that the assessee is an the closing work due to which the show cause notice remained un- complied with. So far as the initial notice is concerned, he submitted that the assessee tried to file its response after receiving the initial notice on 05.08.2024 but the e-submission window was already closed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(E).

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee failed to respond to the initial notice as well as the subsequent show cause notice issued by the CIT(E). We find some force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that non-compliance to the notice(s) was not intentional and has resulted due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The fact on record reveals that the assessee made an attempt to file its response to the first notice, however, the e-filing window on ITBA portal was not accessible to the assessee. We find that this fact was duly brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(E) vide assessee’s letter dated 30.09.2024 submitting therein the relevant extract of the ITBA portal evidencing the above claim of the assessee and making a request to enable the e-portal so that the assessee can file the requisite details. A copy of the said letter is also placed on record before us.

It is also observed that since the application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act was rejected and the provisional registration granted earlier was cancelled, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for approval u/s 80G of the Act. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(E). justice, we deem it proper to restore the impugned issue(s) to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue(s) afresh as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the details as called for by the Ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order(s) as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals in and ITA No.2653/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.