KARUNA KARE FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1214/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 August 20253 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and their undertaking to provide necessary details. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously been granted permanent registration under section 12AB and provisional registration under section 80G(5). However, the CIT(E) had denied the 80G(5) registration due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Considering the assessee's undertaking, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E)'s file. The direction was to consider the available materials and grant registration under section 80G(5) after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Karuna Kare Foundation, filed an appeal against the order dated 03/09/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad (CIT(E)), which denied registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 178 days. The assessee explained the delay by stating that their part-time accountant-cum-clerk failed to follow hearing notices from the CIT(E), leading to an ex-parte order. By the time the trust became aware of the rejection, it was beyond the 60-day period for filing an appeal. The assessee also undertook to provide all necessary details to the CIT(E) if granted another hearing opportunity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, turning on the principles of natural justice and the assessee's explanation for the delay. 2. Whether the order denying registration under section 80G(5) of the Act should be set aside and the matter remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, considering the assessee's undertaking to provide necessary details and the need for an opportunity of hearing. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to the negligence of their part-time accountant and that they were unaware of the rejection order until it was too late. They undertook to furnish all required information if given another chance. The assessee relied on the principle of providing an opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contentions: The Learned CIT-DR supported the order passed by the CIT(E) and requested its confirmation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH

Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

ITA No: 1214/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: N.A. Karuna Kare Foundation The CIT(Exemption), 502 Pushkar Apartment Ahmedabad Opp: Shakti Enclave Vs Judges Bungalow Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad-380054 Gujarat PAN: AAATK8298E (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Ms. Urjita Shah, CA Revenue Represented: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 12-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 25-08-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the order dated 03/09/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] denying registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

A.Y. N.A. Page No 2 Karuna Kare Foundation vs. CIT(E)

2.

The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 178 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee vide Notarized Affidavit explained that the part time Accountant-cum-Clerk not followed the hearing notices issued by Ld. CIT(E) which has resulted in passing exparte order. When the Trust came to know about the rejection order, it was beyond 60 days and finding out a Consultant at Ahmedabad and thereafter filing the appeal at Ahmedabad has resulted in the delay of 178 days. The assessee Trust also undertake to file all necessary details before Ld. CIT(E) if one more opportunity of hearing is given to the assessee.

3.

Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and requested to confirm the same.

4.

We have perused the materials available on record and heard rival submissions and we hereby condone the delay of 178 days in filing the above appeal. It is seen from record, the assessee was granted permanent registration under section 12AB of the Act as well as provisional registration under section 80G(5) of the Act by Ld. CIT(E) since the assessee has failed to response to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(E). Considering the undertaking made by the assessee Trust, we deem it fit to set-aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with the direction to consider the materials available on record and grant registration under section 80G(5) of the Act by providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

A.Y. N.A. Page No 3 Karuna Kare Foundation vs. CIT(E)

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25-08-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 25/08/2025 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

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →