SHRAVAN SEVA FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2163/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 March 2025Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection was primarily due to procedural lapses and not a substantive finding on the institution's genuineness. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shravan Seva Foundation, a Section 8 company, had applied for registration under Section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected the application ex-parte after the assessee failed to respond to notices, cancelling a previously granted provisional approval.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the Section 80G registration application without a proper opportunity of being heard and based solely on procedural lapses is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, AR

"ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम!। ] ] BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.2163/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : NA Shravan Seva Foundation The CIT (Exemption) बनाम/ 18, Kishan Complex Ahmedabad – 380 015 v/s. Opp. Yash Complex Subhanpura Vadodara – 390 023 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ABGCS 8130 B (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sanket Bakshi, AR Revenue by : Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(E)"], dated 21/11/2024, rejecting the assessee’s application for registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"].

2.

The assessee is a Section 8 Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The assessee had applied for approval under Shravan Seva Foundation vs. CIT(E) 2 section 80G of the Act in Form No. 10AB under the first proviso to section 80G(5). The CIT(E) issued notices dated 10/09/2024 and 24/10/2024 to the assessee, seeking necessary details and documentary evidence in support of the application. However, the assessee did not respond to these notices, leading the CIT(E) to reject the application ex-parte and cancel the provisional approval previously granted.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal:

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Ahmedabad ("the CIT") erred in fact and in law in rejecting the application for registration us. 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").

2. The learned CIT erred in fact and in law in rejecting the application for registration u/s. 80G of the Act without giving a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. Your Appellant craves the right to add, to alter, to substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.

4.

Before us, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the email ID mentioned in the application form was not accessed by the assessee, and therefore, it was unaware of the notices issued by the CIT(E). The AR also stated that the CIT(E) did not issue a specific show cause notice before cancelling the provisional approval, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

5.

We find that the rejection of the application was primarily based on non-compliance with procedural requirements rather than a substantive finding regarding the genuineness of the activities of the institution. It is a Shravan Seva Foundation vs. CIT(E) 3 settled principle of law that no adverse order should be passed without granting a proper opportunity of being heard. In this case, the assessee contends that it was not aware of the notices due to issues with email access and that no specific show-cause notice was issued before cancelling the provisional approval.

5.1. We also note that the rejection was not based on any adverse finding regarding the genuineness of the institution but solely on procedural lapses. Considering this fact, we deem it appropriate to restore the case to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

5.2. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, did not raise any objections to the restoration of the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

5.3. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(E) and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →