AABHAI BAHUUDDESHIYA SANSTHA,SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

Aabhai Bahuuddeshiya Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Sanstha, Gut No.103, Pisadevi, Chh. Sambhajinagar- 431001. PAN : AAFTA0337D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rahul Bodkhe Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 12.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

2. That Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting application for registration u/s 80G (in Form 10AD) in case of the appellant trust, without considering submissions on record, without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice. Considering the facts of the case, as such order for rejection may please be re-considered.

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 19.02.2024. 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 30.04.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification on or before 15.05.2024. 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 08.08.2024. 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 (i) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act is not fulfilled. It was also observed that the assessee is not registered u/s 12AB of the IT Act & accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected and the provisional approval granted on 02.09.2022 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.

4. 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.

6. 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 the application for registration 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, otherwise Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass