SRI SATHGURU SANGEETHA SAMAJAM,TALLAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU

Since, the issues raised in both appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

The assessee raised 12 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(E) is justified in rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB seeking approval under clause (iv) B of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act.

We note that the assessee filed online application on 31.01.2024 in Form No. 10AB seeking approval under clause (iv) B of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. The ld. CIT(E), while processing the application, asked the assessee to show-cause as to why its application should not be rejected on account of reasons mentioned in para 2 & 3 of the impugned order. For having no such details, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee.

The ld. AR Shri S. Nanda Kumar, C.A. submits that the application of the assessee has been rejected due to the reason that in assessee’s application a mistake has occurred while uploading Form No. 10AB instead of selecting of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, the assessee has selected code of clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. He argued that the ld. CIT(E) has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to rectify the clerical mistake and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The ld. DR Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT fairly conceded to remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

Having heard both the parties, we note that while processing the application in Form 10AB, the ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee’s case is for fresh approval and the assessee ought to have filed its application under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, but, the assessee erroneously filed its application in Form No. 10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act which covers the cases of trusts which are already approved and seeking re-approval.

Similar issue on an identical fact was subject matter in appeal in the case of M/s. Sri La Sri Sivanandha Mouna Swamigal Trust & ors in & Ors dated 24.06.2024, wherein, the Tribunal directed the ld. CIT(E) to pass a speaking order on merits without going into the technicalities. Since the issue involved in the present appeal is similar, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication keeping in view of the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sri La Sri Sivanandha Mouna Swamigal Trust & ors. (supra). Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. filed by Sri Sathguru Sangeetha Vidyalayam

We find that in this case also the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application seeking approval under section 80G of the Act. Since we have taken a view in remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) in the case of Sri Sathguru Sangeetha Samajam, herein above, the view taken by us is equally applicable to the application seeking approval under section 80G of the Act in ITA No. 2411/Chny/2024. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27th November, 2024 at Chennai.