SWABHIMANI BRAHM SANGATHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.42/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : -NA- Swabhimani Brahm The CIT (Exemption) बनाम/ Sangathan Ahmedabad – 380 015 v/s. 307, Chitrarath Complex Gujarat University SO President Hotel Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAVTS 8521 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Adjournment Application filed सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(Exemption)"], rejecting the application for final registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. Swabhimani Brahm Sangathan vs. The CIT(E)

2 2. The registry has noted a delay of 403 days (410 days as stated by the assessee in its application) in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay accompanied by an Affidavit sworn by Shri Kamlesh Jani, Trustee of the assessee trust. It is explained that the delay occurred as the notices issued by the CIT(Exemption) were uploaded on the ITBA portal without any physical service or proper communication to the trustees, and the assessee was under a bona fide belief that its application was still under consideration.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:

3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify, or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.

4 were merely uploaded on the ITBA portal without actual communication to the trustees.

6.1. In our opinion, before rejecting an application under Section 12A/12AA, the Commissioner (Exemption) must afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and objectively satisfy himself about the genuineness of the trust's activities and its objects. Denial of registration merely for procedural lapses without granting an effective hearing violates principles of natural justice.

6.2. In the present case, the manner in which the notices were issued and the subsequent rejection without ensuring effective service indicates that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

6.3. In view of the above, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad and restore the matter to his file for deciding the application for registration under Section 12AB afresh, after granting due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.4. The assessee is also directed to promptly comply with all notices and co-operate with the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Swabhimani Brahm Sangathan vs. The CIT(E)