VEERAPPAN SANKARAMMAL CHARITABLE TRUST,NAMAKKAL vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 966/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 June 2024Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE, SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on a technicality and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The CIT(E) is directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to correct the application and consider it on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for renewal of recognition under Section 80G but filed the application under the wrong clause. The CIT(E) rejected the application on this technical ground.

What were the issues?

Whether rejection of an application for renewal of recognition under Section 80G on a technical ground without providing an opportunity to rectify is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 24.06.2024Pronounced: 26.06.2024

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी ’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 966/Chny/2024 Commissioner of Income Tax Veerappan Sankarammal v. (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Chennai. 285 Trichy Road, Namakkal – 637 001 [PAN: AADTV-0128-K] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Sri Krishna, CA by virtual ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

Aggrieved by rejection of application filed in Form No.10AB on 23.09.2023 for seeking renewal of recognition under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Sec.80G vide impugned order dated 07.03.2024, the assessee is in further appeal before us. It has been stated that the application was rejected on the ground that the assessee ought to have applied under clause (iii) of first proviso to Sec.80G(5) but it wrongly applied under clause (ii).

2.

As is evident, the assessee was been granted provisional approval from 24.09.2021 to AY 2024-25. The Ld. CIT(E) held that application filed under Clause (ii) would not be maintainable since the application was to be filed in Clause (iii) in assessee’s case. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

:-2-: ITA. No: 966/Chny/2024

3.

We find that the application has been rejected merely on technical ground. It is clear that the assessee had obtained provisional approval and it sought permanent registration. By inadvertent mistake, the assessee preferred application under wrong Clause (ii) instead of Clause (iii). The assessee ought to have been granted an opportunity to rectify the same. Nevertheless, we direct Ld. CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the application and consider the same on merits. The assessee is directed to substantiate its application.

4.

In the result, appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th June, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग�र) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) �ाियक सद�/Judicial Member लेखासद�/Accountant Member चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 26th June, 2024 JPV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु�/CIT– Chennai 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

:-3-: ITA. No: 966/Chny/2024

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →