SECRET CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: 1.1 The order passed by U/s.80G(5) on 30.12.2024 by CIT(Exem), Ahmedabad rejecting the application for approval of the appellant trust u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act and cancelling the provisional approval by holding that the appellant trust was a religious- cum- charitable trust which is excluded from the benefits of sec.80G(5) is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.

2 The ld. CIT(Exem) has erred in not considering fully and properly the explanations furnished and evidence produced by the appellant trust.

3 The Id. CIT(Exem) has failed to appreciate that there was sufficient cause for failure to respond to the show cause notice issued on 29.12.2024 at 6.26 p.m. and asking to respond by 30.12.2024 at 5.00 p.m. Thus, the appellant was allowed hardly 2.1 The Id. CIT (Exem), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that the appellant trust was not a religious trust and even the composite trust being charitable cum religious in nature which was eligible for approval u/s 80G(5).

2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the ld. CIT(Exem), ought not to have held that the appellant trust was a composite trust eligible for approval u/s 80G(5).

1 The Id. CIT(Exem), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in rejecting the approval of the appellant trust u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act and cancelling the provisional approval.

2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(Exem), ought not to have rejected the application for registration by ignoring the evidence on record with the application for registration.

The Authorized Representative ("AR") of the assessee contended that the order passed by the CIT(E) is against the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not given adequate time to respond to the SCN issued on 29.12.2024. It was submitted that the 24-hour response period was grossly insufficient, particularly given the ongoing ITR and audit work of the assessee's staff. It was further submitted that the CIT(E) failed to appreciate the explanations and evidence filed by the assessee, including its reply dated 23.11.2024, wherein details of the trust’s activities and financials were provided. The AR contended that even if the trust had composite objectives (charitable + religious), it was still eligible for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. It was argued that the CIT(E) erred in holding that the assessee 5. The Departmental Representative ("DR") did not raise any objection to restoring the matter back to the file of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. The primary issue for our consideration is whether the rejection of approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act and cancellation of provisional approval by the CIT(E) was justified. We find that the CIT(E) issued a show cause notice on 29.12.2024 at 6:26 PM, directing the assessee to respond by 30.12.2024 at 5:00 PM. Thus, the assessee was provided with less than 24 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