Facts
The applicant, Dasha Modh Sajan Maha Mandal, filed for 80G(5) approval, which was rejected by the CIT(E) without considering submitted evidence. The applicant also contended that the rejection order lacked a digital signature and was invalid due to a prior rejection of 12A/12B approval, which the 80G(5) approval was consequential to.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) had not considered the evidence filed by the applicant trust. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, including the evidence, and to provide the applicant an opportunity of hearing, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the 80G(5) approval application without considering evidence and if the rejection order was valid given the lack of digital signature and its consequential nature to prior 12A/12B rejection.
Sections Cited
80G(5), 282A, 12A, 12B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH
Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokar
आदेश/ORDER
Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 27-12- 2024 passed by CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad.
The grounds of appeal are as under:- “(1) That on facts, and in law, the impugned rejection order passed u/s. 80G(5) of the Act is bad in law and without jurisdiction in as much as the same having been issued without any digital signature as is evident from the rejection order as uploaded by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Ahmedabad on the ITBA portal. That since the said order and communication having not been passed in conformity with the provisions laid down u/s. 282A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, renders the rejection order legally untenable Dasha Modh Sajan Maha Mandal, A.Y. N.A. under the law and deserves to be quashed as null and void on this ground itself.
1. 1. 2) That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT (Exemptions), Ahmedabad has grievously erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the Act as non-maintainable on the ground that since application for approval of registration u/s.12A/128 having been rejected there is no valid order for registration, which is a prerequisite for grant of approval u/s.80G of the Act.
3) That since on facts and in law, the approval for registration u/s.80G(5)(iii) being consequential to the approval for registration u/s. 12A/12B of the Act, the appeal against the order in dispute may be decided on the outcome of the appeal filed against rejection of approval u/s. 12A/128 dated 26/12/2024.
4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.”
3. The applicant/appellant filed the application in Form 10AB on 17.06.2024 for approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Notices were issued from time to time requesting to furnish details/documents. The CIT(E) rejected the application of the applicant vide order dated 27-12-2024. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the applicant trust filed appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(E) has rejected the application for approval u/s. 80G of the Act of the assessee without considering the evidence which has already been filed along original Form 10AB application on 17.06.2024. Therefore, Ld. A.R. submitted that the matter may be remanded to then CIT(E) for proper adjudication. The CIT-D.R. relied upon the order of the CIT(E).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(E) has not at all considered the evidence filed by the applicant trust. Hence, it will be appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for consideration of the application afresh and to pass an order by taking into consideration Dasha Modh Sajan Maha Mandal, A.Y. N.A. the evidences filed by the applicant trust. The applicant trust be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal of the applicant trust is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17-11-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand V. Mahadeokar) (Suchitra Kamble) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 17/11/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद