MAHESH PODDAR JANKALYAN SANSTHAN,RANCHI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(DR) submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities but did not appear and only furnished part compliance. The CIT(E) rejected the application for regular approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not fully respond to notices. However, considering the facts, the Tribunal felt that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The issues were restored to the file of CIT(E) for readjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given adequate opportunities by the CIT(E) and whether the rejection of application for regular approval was justified.
Sections Cited
80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.
CIT(Exemption), Patna dated 27/06/2025.
None represented on behalf of the assessee but Shri Rajib Jain, ld. CIT-DR
represented on behalf of the revenue.
The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the ld. CIT(E) provided sufficient opportunities
to the assessee, the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and only
furnished part compliance/details. He strongly supported the order passed by
the ld. CIT(E).
We have considered the facts and we have also perused the orders of the
lower authorities. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(E) in the impugned
case shows that the ld. CIT(E) has recorded in his order that multiple
opportunities had been given to the assessee right from 15/01/2025 to
ITA No. 284/Ran/2025 Mahesh Poddar Jankalyan Sansthan vs ITO(E)
03/06/2025 and the assessee has chosen to only part comply with the notices
issued to the assessee. As it is noticed that the assessee has not responded
to the notices completely, the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for grant
of regular approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act. Considering the facts of
the case, we are of the view that the assessee must be granted another
opportunity to represent its case before the ld. CIT(E). In the circumstances,
we restore the issues in the appeal back to the file of ld. CIT(E) for
readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being
heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the set aside proceedings
before the ld. CIT(E). The assessee is also directed to furnish all the
documents with its possession before the ld. CIT(E) to substantiate its claim.
It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without
there being a justified reason.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 05/03/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi, Dated: 05/03/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi
