M/S GLOBAL LEADERSHIP MINISTRY TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ADIT, BANGALORE

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)], Bangalore dated 01.08.2012 denying the benefit of recognition u/s. 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter called “the Act”].

It has been brought to our notice that there is a delay of 8 days in filing of appeal for which application for condonation of delay is filed and having carefully examined it, we find that there is reasonable cause for delay and we accordingly condone the same and admit the appeal for hearing.

During the course of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that assessee has been granted registration u/s. 12A of the Act and was engaged in charitable activities, but the benefit of recognition u/s. 80G was denied only for the reason that some of the activities of the assessee are religious in nature. The ld. counsel for the assessee further placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal dated 24.08.2011 in the case of M/s. Jesus Heals Mission Trust v. ITO in with the submission that under identical circumstances, the Tribunal has set aside the order of CIT and directed him to adjudicate the issue afresh in light of the specific contentions raised by the assessee.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has contended that before the CIT(E), most of the time assessee sought adjournments and has not pleaded its case effectively. On account of non-cooperation of the assessee, the CIT(E) was forced to adjudicate the issue on the basis of material available on record.

Having carefully examined the order of ld. CIT(E), we find that on a number of occasions assessee sought adjournment for one reason or the other and therefore CIT(E) has adjudicated the issue on the basis of material available on record and denied the recognition u/s. 80G of the Act. On a careful perusal of the order of CIT(E), we find that assessee has not put forth his case before the CIT(E) by placing the relevant evidence with regard to its nature of activities and the ld. CIT(E) was forced to adjudicate the issue on the basis of material available on record. Having carefully examined the order of ld. CIT(E), we find that assessee has already been granted registration u/s. 12A of the Act and the ld. CIT(E) should have examined the issue in light of the registration granted u/s. 12A of the Act and the activities undertaken by the assessee. It is also not clear from the order of CIT(E) as to how much percentage of activities of the assessee was religious in nature. We therefore, to meet the ends of justice, set aside the order of CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to re- adjudicate the issue afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend all cooperation and file all relevant evidence before the CIT(E) so that he can take a proper view.

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.