KULAPATHI BOOK TRUST,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by M/s. Kulapathi Book Trust, Visakhapatnam (“the
assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(E)”), rejecting
approval u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide order dated
13.12.2024.
The assessee has raised the following grounds :
“ 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(E), Hyderabad is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
ITA No.110/Viz/2025 2
The Ld. CIT(E) is not justified in rejecting the application filed by appellant in Form No.10AB for Registration u/s.80G of the Act. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had applied for
approval u/s.80G of the Act by filing Form no.10AB before the Ld. CIT(E).
However, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application stating that the assessee had
not carried out substantial activities of charitable nature.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before
us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the
assessee had fully complied with all the requirements and had provided
complete details of its charitable activities to the Ld. CIT(E) including
documentary evidences supporting its charitable nature, audited financial
statements reflecting the application of funds towards charitable purposes,
etc. However, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without providing any
specific reason as to why the activities undertaken were not considered as
charitable. The order is cryptic, non-speaking and arbitrary and the Ld. CIT(E)
failed to pointout any specific deficiency in the documents filed or the
activities carried out by the assessee. Finally, the Ld. AR prayed before the
bench for setting aside the impugned order for remanding the matter back to
ITA No.110/Viz/2025 3
the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with a
proper opportunity of being heard.
Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”)
supported the order of Ld. CIT(E) and argued that the Ld. CIT(E) rightly rejected
the application as the assessee failed to demonstrate substantial charitable
activities. Finally, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench to reject the appeal of
the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record
in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have gone through the
paper book filed by the assessee and found that the assessee has filed all the
documents in compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) including the
details of charitable activities conducted by the assessee, audited financial
statements reflecting the application of funds, etc. We have also gone
through the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and found that the Ld. CIT(E) has
not pointed out any specific deficiency neither in the documents filed by the
assessee nor in the activity carried out by the assessee. We also found that
the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is non-speaking and lacks any reasoning. In
our considered opinion, the rejection of application for approval u/s.80G of
the Act without assigning any specific reason is arbitrary and against the
principle of natural justice. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(E) has not
ITA No.110/Viz/2025 4
properly appreciated the documents submitted by the assessee and has not given the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say,
the Ld. CIT(E) should provide an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is
allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th April, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 15 .04.2025. * Reddy gp Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. M/s. Kulapathi Book Trust, 14-38-2, Radha Madhavam Muppidi Colony, Krishna Nagar, Vizag, A.P. 2. ITO(Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam. 3. CIT(E)/Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,
