BODDU LAKSHMIDEVI CHARITABLE TRUST,SRIKAKULAM vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 39/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 March 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s order cryptic as it failed to specify which activities were not charitable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and the issuance of a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Boddu Lakshmidevi Charitable Trust, appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejecting its application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The rejection was based on the premise that no substantial charitable activities were being carried out by the assessee, allegedly in violation of Section 12AB of the Act, without specifying details of such activities.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of an application for Section 80G registration is valid if the order from the CIT(E) is cryptic and fails to specify the reasons or particular non-charitable activities, thereby denying the assessee a proper opportunity to address the concerns raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 12AB,Section 10(23C)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S

Hearing: 03/03/2025

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 03/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 07/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 26/11/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), (“learned CIT(E)”), Hyderabad the case of Boddu Lakshmidevi Charitable Trust (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

At the outset, learned AR submitted that the learned CIT (E) rejected the application of the assessee in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) stating that no substantial activities which are charitable in nature are being carried out by the assessee, which is in violation of the provisions of the sec. 12 AB of the Act, without specifying any details thereof. The learned AR submitted that without pointing out which activity of the assessee does not fall in the category of charitable activities, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the application for registration in section 80G of the Act.

3.

Learned DR placing to heavy reliance on the impugned order and submitted that the learned CIT(E) took a plausible view on a perusal of the submissions made by the assessee that the assessee did not do any considerable activity of charitable in nature.

4.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is not known whether the assessee has any registration under section 12 AB of the Act was granted under clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act. Except the photographs, assessee did not submit any material whether it is the financial statements, or the objectives of the assessee, before us to consider the merits of the case. But it is evident from the impugned order that the learned CIT(E) did not specify any event that does not fall in the category of charitable activity and the impugned order is cryptic in that respect.

5.

In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the issue in the light of the material after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard, and pass a speaking order. Grounds are answered accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 7th March, 2025.

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →