Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee-applicant applied for recognition under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected the application citing incomplete reply and non-genuineness of activities. The assessee had received two notices but only replied to the first, failing to respond to the second.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted registration under Section 12AB and that they were ready to submit complete details if given another chance. Considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the Section 80G application without providing a proper opportunity of being heard, especially when the assessee had fulfilled other conditions and was granted Section 12AB registration.
Sections Cited
80G, 12AB, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1577/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2025-26 cuke Pranitya Seva Bharti Samiti CIT Exemption, Vs. Jaipur Jaipur Seva Sadan Behind Sahkar Bhawan, Hotal Virasat Ke Samne Vali Gali, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAETP7822K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Aditya Vyas, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28/05/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
This appeal is filed by appellant - assessee and is arising out of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [for short ‘CIT(E)] passed in persuasion of an application in Form no. 10AB seeking approval 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] dated 09.11.2024.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed under by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur ['CIT(E)] rejecting the application for registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(E) has been erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application of the assessee for approval under section 80G of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee has filed the application within the prescribed time limit and fulfilled all the conditions as provided under the Act and thus, eligible for registration.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application for registration under section 80G(5) of the Act, 1961 despite the fact that the assessee has been granted registration under section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2024 from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 80G of the Act, 1961 despite the fact that there is no adverse finding regarding the aims, objects and genuineness of activities of the assessee and hence application for registration cannot be rejected. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the provisional registration granted to the assessee under clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-applicant vide application dated 06.05.2024 applied for recognition u/s 80G of the Act but that application of the trust seeking recognition was rejected on the following grounds.
It was argued before us that the assessee was given only two notices first was on 01.07.2024 and another on 29.10.2024, the assessee replied to the first notice and the 2nd notice no reply was submitted. The assessee could not reply even though the non-compliance on the part of the assessee, the reason advanced was incomplete reply and non- genuineness of the activities. The bench noted that the assessee has been already granted the registration u/s 12AB on 28.03.2024. Thus, the reasons advanced for other part is not correct and for the first reason the assessee applicant was not allowed proper opportunity of being heard and therefore, one chance was prayed to be granted.
Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the order of ld. CIT(E) and at the same time she did not object to the prayer of the assessee to remand back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(E).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. The bench noted that in this case only two opportunities were granted to the assessee and the assessee replied to first one and second they could not. The bench also noted that while rejecting the application for recognition of the applicant-trust the reasons advanced is that the non-genuineness of the activities and incomplete reply. The bench further noted that for the first complete details if one more chance be given and so far as the second reason, we note that fate of the 12AB application shall affect the fate of issue u/s 80G. Considering overall facts, we deem it to be a case to remand the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(E) who will decide the issue after allowing the proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee applicant.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/06/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 03/06/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलि पिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Pranitya Seva Bharti Samiti, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT, Exemption, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 1577/JP/2024) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत