Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Safety Education and Research Foundation, had its application for approval under Section 80G(5) rejected by the CIT (Exemption). The application was filed in Form No. 10AB, and the rejection order was dated 23.08.2022. The assessee is appealing this rejection.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 521 days in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000 to be deposited with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G(5) by the CIT (Exemption) was justified, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
80G(5), 17A/11AA/2C, 11AA, 12(A) (a), 10AB, 10AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM;
Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year NA, is directed against order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), vide order dated 23.08.2022, whereby the application filed in Form No. 10AB for the approval u/s. 80G(5) of the I.T. Act, is rejected. GROUNDS OF APPEALS: - 1) The learned CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad has erred in rejecting our application under rule 17A/11AA/2C made on 31/3/2022 vide e Ack. No.552080900310322. The said application is made in the prescribed Form No.10AB.Objects of the trust Safety Education & Research Foundation. were mentioned at row no.5 of Form No.10AB. However the said application has been made hurriedly by inexperienced professional, the details required as per row No.15 of FormNo.10AB was left out to be filled in and the same thing has been happened to participate and complying notices issued by the Authority from time to time and order rejection of Approval is passed without hearing the trust, though the learned CIT (exemption) could have issue more notices. On the facts and in the circumstances approval 80G (5) be granted to the assessee institution.
2. The leaned CIT (Exemption) Ahd. erred in rejecting our application for approval U/s.80G as the said authority is always well equipped with the power to call for records of Jurisdictional the Trust Α.Ο. its from and could have verified the activities carried out by the for said institution providing Safety Education to industrial Units. This institution is established on 12/10/12 and registered on same day Assistant Charity Commissioner, Surat and registered U/s.12A (a) on 9/5/23 with Income-tax Departments. This institution has also submitted the return of income regularly and Audit Reports are also prepared. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, approval U/s.80G(5) may kindly be granted as all the required details on are the record Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
The appellant may be permitted to alter, rectify, modify, withdraw the grounds duly raised and to raise new grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings.
Facts of the Case Safety Education and Research Foundation is established on 12/10/2012 and registered with Assistant Charity Commissioner, Surat also on 12/10/12 The said institution is registered U/s.12 (A) (a) of income-tax 1961 09/5/2013 at registration on Surat/AAA-111/technical/12A/31/2013 -14. It has got provisional Approval under rule 14A/11AA-2C vide order dated 01-10- 2021 by PCIT from 01-10-2021 to A.Y. 2024-25 on The Institution made application for approval of the trust U/s.80G (5) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. to the CIT (Exemption) Ahmedabad on 31/03/22 in Safety Education & Research Foundation. form No.10AB under rule 11AA of the I.T. Rules, 1962 However, vide order dtd.23/9/22 the said authority has rejected our application in form of 10AD for the approval U/s.80G (5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without giving sufficient opportunities. On being aggrieved by the order of CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad, this appeal is preferred before this Tribunal.
There is a delay of 521 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit the relevant part is reproduce. “The Appellant Trust had received the order of rejection of approval of 80G (5) in the prescribed Form No. 10AD from the CIT (Exemption) Ahmadabad on 23709/2022 and appeal against the same is required to be filed on or before 22/11/22. The same is going to be submitted on 15/4/2024 and thus delay of 521 days has been caused. It is submitted that entrusted to income- tax matters of the trust are inexperienced professional, who is the only person in knowledge of the above rejection of 80G (5) Application. Due to some difference of opinion, the said professional has left and us no communication regarding rejection of appeal as well as remedial measure of filing appeal to the ITAT were made to us by and him incidentally only asking of certificate U/s. 80G (5) by one of the donors, came to know about rejection of our application by CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad. The appellant feels deeply sorry for the delay You’re that the caused and beg apology for the inordinate delay of Honour days institution will be vigilant in complying various 521 and assure notices orders etc. and in filing petitions appeal etc. in future, and assure Your Honour's that there is no intention malafied provision of law. to contravene any On the facts and reasons mentioned supra, Your Honour is requested institution was not condone aware the delay as about rejection of approval Safety Education & Research Foundation. for number of days and their professional never communicated them about rejection.”
That the delay is due to that the consultant who entrusted to income-tax matters of the trust are inexperienced professional, who could not give due advice to the assessee. That this reason for delay doesn’t seems, to be an effective reason for condonation of delay. In order to avoid the miscarriage of justice we allow the application subject to deposit a cost of Rs, 5000 with prime minister relief fund within two weeks from the receipt of the order and the copy of the receipt and the submitted with CIT(E). with this view we condone the delay in filing the appeal and matter is heard on merit. At the same time, as agreed by both sides and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play. We deem it fit to give one more opportunity to the assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before CIT(E) for proper adjudication accordingly we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to participate in the hearing as may be fixed by CIT(E) and do not seek unnecessary adjournment filing which the CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordions with law.
In result the appeal of the assessee allowed for statical purpose. Order pronounced in the under proviso to rule 34 of ITAT rule, 1963 on 15 / 10 /2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNT MEMBER JUDICAL MEMBER //True Copy// Safety Education & Research Foundation.