Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal challenges the order of rejection for grant of 80G approval, passed u/s 80G(5)(vi) r.w.s. 11AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”] by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [for short “CIT(E)”] dt. 31/10/2019 for the reasons of short- compliance with the requirement sought.
Before coming to facts, its apt to voice that, the grounds raised in the present appeal are ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6
The Jawale Vidya Vikas Mandal PAN: AABTT5380K inconsonance with rule 8 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT Rules”], however for the purpose of adjudication, it shall suffice to articulate that, the sole & substantive ground is directed against the rejection of grant of approval sought u/s 80G of the Act.
Briefly stated facts borne out of the records are; 3.1 The appellant filed an application in Form No 10G on 13/11/2017 seeking grant of approval for 80G before the Ld. CIT(E), wherein in-order to verify the object, activities and to ascertain the fulfilment of condition laid in section 12AA, the appellant was put to notice dt. 27/11/2017 thereby calling upon the compliance, which partially responded through written submission by the appellant.
3.2 The appellant’s partial submission failed to comply with the requirement so as to enable the Ld. CIT(E) to verify the object and the activities of the appellant and the fulfilment of conditions laid in section 12AA of the Act, consequently, the Ld. CIT(E) ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6
The Jawale Vidya Vikas Mandal PAN: AABTT5380K saddled with time-barring proceeding rejected the grant of approval by for the reasons elaborately dealt in para 3 to 6 of the impugned order.
3.3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection of grant of approval, the appellant is in appeal before us alleging the action of Ld. CIT(E) as contra-legem.
When the matter called up for hearing, none represented the assessee, mindful to the conduct of the appellant showing no appearance on many occasions, we in the interest of justice proceeded to adjudicate the matters following rule 24 of the ITAT- Rules, which empowers this Tribunal to decide the appeal filed by the appellant ex–parte on merits where the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative and the same is done placing on record a no-objection from the respondent revenue. It is needless to mention further that, the proviso to the said rule carves out an exception by empowering the Tribunal to recall the ex–parte order, if the appellant appears afterwards ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 6
The Jawale Vidya Vikas Mandal PAN: AABTT5380K and satisfies placing evidential material before the Tribunal that, there was sufficient cause for his non– appearance when the appeal was called for hearing and in the event of failure to substantiate the non- appearance, the recall exercise dies out.
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.
In the extant appeal, considering that there was no adverse material against the appellant to come to the conclusion that it was not a charitable institution or organisation and, therefore, it was allowed a registration u/s 12A of the Act and as of today the appellant stands registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A of the Act. However in the proceedings of grant of approval, it is evinced that, in the absence of ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 6
The Jawale Vidya Vikas Mandal PAN: AABTT5380K reasonable opportunity, the appellant failed to adduce necessary & additional evidential documents against the shortcoming noted by the Ld. CIT(E) vide para 3 to 6 of the impugned order, which ultimately laid to rejection of Form No 10G.
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 UOI” reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 has laid down that, the rule of fair hearing is necessary before passing any order, the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be for namesake, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine of natural justice is a facet of fair play in action and no person shall be saddled with a liability without being heard.
ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6
The Jawale Vidya Vikas Mandal PAN: AABTT5380K 8. Apparently, the partial submission of the appellant did not productively prove its eligibility and claim for grant of approval for 80G, as a consequence application found rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) without first communicating such short-comings and reasonable opportunity to cure them, hence for the reason, we without commenting on the merits of the case, deem necessary to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for according one more effective opportunity to cure the defects with a rider that, the appellant shall not seek unreasoned adjournment.
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 Wednesday 30th day of November, 2022.