CHINNASAMY NAGALINGAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 906/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 July 2024AY 2024-25Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the application should not be rejected on mere technical grounds. The wrong selection of a clause could be an inadvertent error, especially with the new registration regime. The assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the mistake.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 80G(5) was rejected because they filed under the wrong clause. The assessee had provisional registration but applied under clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5).

What were the issues?

Whether an application for registration under Section 80G(5) can be rejected solely on the technical ground of selecting the wrong clause, or if an opportunity to rectify the error should be provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद( के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ Chinnasamy Nagalingam Institute of CIT (Exemption) Medical Science Research Foundation Chennai. बनाम/ 445/25, Sivan Koil Street, Vs. Kodoovur B.O Koovathur -603 305. Kanchipuram. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACTC-3759-Q (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld.Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aggrieved by rejection of an application filed in Form No.10AB seeking registration under Clause (ii) of first proviso to Sec. 80G(5) vide impugned order dated 09.02.2024, the assessee is in further appeal before us. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the application has been rejected in view of the fact that the assessee was having provisional registration and it had filed application under clause (ii) of first proviso to Sec. 80G(5) whereas it ought to have applied under clause (iii) of first proviso to 80G(5) which is applicable for provisionally registered entity. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

We are of the considered opinion that the application ought not to be rejected on mere technical grounds. The wrong selection of clause may be due to an inadvertent error and the same may be in view of the fact that new regime of registration of trust was brought in place very recently. The applicant ought to have been granted an opportunity to rectify the error. Therefore, we direct Ld. CIT(E) to grant an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistake and thereafter, proceed for disposal of application on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा45 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद7 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे9ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :03-07-2024 DS आदेशकीGितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुA/CIT Chennai. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडFफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →