Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable trust, filed an application for registration u/s 80G. The CIT rejected the application after the assessee failed to respond to a notice asking for clarification on discrepancies.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the registration application u/s 80G by the CIT was justified without granting a further opportunity to the assessee, especially when the non-compliance was due to a missed notice.
Sections Cited
80G, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Sahayog Charitable Trust, Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Ramashree Plot No.10, Near Trikoni Garden, Swarka Kathe Galli, Nashik- 422011. PAN : AABTS8420M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing 05.03.2025 : Date of pronouncement 06.03.2025 : आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G of the IT Act.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting application filed by the appellant in Form 10AB for approval under sub clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) without appreciating that the said action was not justified on facts and in law.
2. The appellant submits that there was a reasonable cause due to which notice dated 1.10.2024 issued by CIT(E), Pune could not be complied and hence, it is prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter may please be restored to the file of CIT(E), Pune to adjudicated the same on merits after granting one more opportunity of being heard.
3. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee is a trust 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 23.05.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and fulfilment of conditions laid down in clause (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act, a notice was issued through ITBA portal on 24.06.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification on or before 09.07.2024. The assessee in response to above notice furnished desired information as mentioned in the notice. After verifying these details, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies and asked for their clarification on or before 18.10.2024. 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) 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 23.05.2024 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 further submitted that somehow the assessee trust missed the last notice & failed to submit any reply, therefore Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration. 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 of the 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.
We find that admittedly the assessee made compliance to the initial notice issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, but the subsequent notice could not be answered by him. It is the sole contention of Ld. AR 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, since only seven days time was allowed to respond against the notice. We find some force in the arguments of Ld. AR & considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice, without going into the merits of the case, 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