M/S VIMALA SHANKAR FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1261/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 July 20164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that without the query letter, it was impossible to ascertain if the assessee's reply was complete. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) was rejected by the CIT(E) because no reply was submitted to a query dated July 8, 2015. The assessee claimed to have submitted a reply on July 15, 2015, but the query letter itself was not available.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for 80G approval due to an incomplete response, and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Pronounced: 15.07

O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, JM:

This is assessee’s appeal directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Exemptions), Bangalore, dated 31-07-2015 passed by him u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under “1.The order of the Ld. CIT(E) in so far as it is against the appellant, in rejecting the application and refusing to grant approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The ld. CIT is not justified in refusing to grant approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case.

3. The ld. CIT is not justified in holding that the appellant had not furnished the required particulars and has not submitted satisfactory explanation, which remark is not true and such finding is contrary to evidence and is vitiated and therefore, the refusal to grant approval requires to be set aside.

4.

The ld. CIT is not justified in holding that it was not possible for him to assert the genuineness of the objectives and functions of the Trust and on that alleged count rejecting the grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and such finding is contrary to evidence and is vitiated and therefore, the refusal to grant approval require to be set aside.

5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the approval may be allowed and justice rendered”.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the basis of the order of the ld. CIT(E) is this that no reply was submitted by the assessee to a query dated 08-07-2015 issued by the ld.CIT(E). In this regard, he has drawn our attention to letter dated 15-07-2015 available on pages 22 to 29 of the paper book and it was submitted that this is the reply to the letter issued by the ld. CIT(E) dated 08-07-2015.

4. At this juncture, a query was raised by the Bench regarding the copy of the letter dated 08-07-2015 issued by the CIT(E) and in reply, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the said query letter dated 08- 07-2015 is not readily available.

5.

The ld. DR of the revenue supported the order of the ld. CIT(E).

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and we find that as per reply letter dated 15-07-2015 available on pages 22-29 of the paper book, it is stated in the said letter that this is in reply to letter dated 08-07-2015 issued by ld. CIT (E, but in the absence of query letter dated 08-07-2015, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the reply dated 15-07-2015 is complete or not to the query letter dated 08-07-2015. Under these facts, we feel it proper to restore the entire matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

We order accordingly.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(vi)

All 260 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →