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

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) 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.

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

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").

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.

Your Appellant craves the right to add, to alter, to substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.

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.

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) 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.

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.

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.

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.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th March, 2025 at Ahmedabad. ( SANJAY GARG ) JUDICIAL MEMBER अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 20 /03/2025

अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 2. "%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& ) अपील ( / The CIT(E)- Ahmedabad 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध , अिधकरण