INDIGIVE FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The assessee, Indigive Foundation, filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) issued a notice dated 20-09-2024, fixing the date of hearing on 07-10-2024. In response, the assessee filed a reply on 07-10-2024, seeking an adjournment. However, the adjournment request was not considered. Thereafter, a second notice was issued on 07-11-2024, but the assessee missed responding to it. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of its activities and compliance with clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us with following grounds of appeal -

1. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, respected C1T Exemption has erred in fact and in law in rejecting the application of approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of non-satisfaction about genuineness of activities of the institution.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee duly filed a reply on 07-10-2024, seeking an . Indigive Foundation vs. CIT(Exemption)

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) fairly conceded that only two notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and did not object to the matter being restored for fresh adjudication.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee filed a reply on 07-10-2024 in response to the first notice dated 20-09-2024, seeking an adjournment. However, the adjournment was not considered by the Ld. CIT(E). Further, the assessee missed responding to the second notice. The rejection of the application under section 80G(5) was primarily based on non-satisfaction of the genuineness of activities and non-fulfillment of statutory conditions. However, we find that the Ld. CIT(E) ought to have examined the material already available on record before arriving at a conclusion. The principles of natural justice require that adequate opportunity be provided before rejecting an application, particularly when an assessee has sought an adjournment in response to the initial notice.

The Ld. DR has also not objected to restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. In view of these facts, we deem it . Indigive Foundation vs. CIT(Exemption) appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file for fresh consideration.

The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to examine the assessee’s application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and considering all material on record. At the same time, the assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish the necessary documents as required by the Ld. CIT(E).

In light of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.