KAUSALYA AND SHAM FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged a delay in filing the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee. The CIT(E) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for registration.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable Trust, filed an application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) denied registration for want of details and without granting an adjournment, despite notices being sent via email.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in denying registration under Section 80G without providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to furnish required documents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH
Kausalya And Sham The CIT (Exemption), Foundation Ahmedabad E 1103 Safal Parivesh, Vs Near Auda Garden Prahlad Nagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat India (Respondent) PAN: AAICK8652R (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.R. Revenue Represented: Adjournment Application filed Date of hearing : 24-04-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-04-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad denying registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a charitable Trust filed Application for registration in Form 10AB along with Page No 2 Navyug Charitable Seva Samiti vs. CIT(E) supporting documents. The Ld. CIT(E) issued hearing notices on 09-04-2024 and 30-04-2024 via email to furnish certain details/documents for granting registration. The assessee neither filed any submissions nor sought for any adjournments, therefore Ld. CIT(E) denied registration u/s. 80G of the Act in the absence of any details.
Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee Trust is prepared to file all required documents before Ld. CIT(E) for registration and therefore requested to set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for granting registration. There is a delay of 95 days in filing the above appeal, therefore we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Income Tax Department within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On production of receipt for payment of the cost, Ld. CIT(E) is directed to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for registration in accordance with the provisions of law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026