MAHESH MANAV SEVA SANSTHA,ICHALKARANJI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - EXEMPTION, PUNE

Concisely stated facts borne out of the case records are; 3.1 The appellant is a registered society under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide registration number MAH/32856/KOLHAPUR dt. 15/10/2013, has e-filed an application in Form No 10A on 05/06/2020 seeking grant of registration u/s 12AA under the category of charitable trust / institution. The Ld. CIT(E) in-order to verify the objects, activities and to ascertain the fulfilment of conditions for granting registration u/s 12AA of the Act, was put the appellant to a notice dt. 28/08/2020 thereby calling upon additional documents. Perusing the submission, the Ld. CIT(E) by a subsequent notice dt. 17/12/2020 called for an authenticated copy of trust deed having ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of “ITAT Rules”, perused the material placed on record, case laws relied upon by the appellant as well the respondent and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to either parties.

First thing first, insofar as delay of 84 days in instituting present appeal is concerned, having regards to facts & circumstance, we find merits in the submission of the appellant in establishing sufficiency of reason in delayed filing, consequently in the light of ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 6

In the extant appeal, we vouched that, the Ld. CIT(E) after considering the preliminary submission had called for an additional evidential documents which the appellant meritoriously failed to make good by the due date, consequent to which, the Ld. CIT(E) without further opportunity rejected to grant 12AA registration to the appellant society.

In this context, the Tribunal makes a note that, the principle of “Audi alteram partem” is the basic concept of natural justice, and the expression implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself, and principle is a sine qua non of every civilized society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its landmark decision rendered in “Maneka Gandhi Vs ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 6

Ostensibly, the preliminary submission of the appellant did not productively prove its eligibility and claim for grant of approval for 12AA, as a consequence the Ld. CIT(E) requisitioned additional documents by a notice dt. 17/12/2020 and in the event failure, without further opportunity to the appellant, rejected the application in violation of principle of natural justice as commanded by proviso to section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, thus action of the Ld. CIT(E) suffered from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to refute the rejection vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought, thus for the reason, we without commenting on the merits ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6

Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Tuesday 27th day of December, 2022.