IRTT 91-95 BATCH CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-3, , CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वकी, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.653/Chny/2024 IRTT 91-95 Batch Charitable The Income Tax Officer, Trust, D2 Kavya Anjali Vs. Exemption Ward-3, Chennai- Apartment, No.8, Sathalwar 34. Street Mogappair West, Chennai-37 [PAN-AABTI8310G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal arises from order vide DIN/order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM/45/2022-23/1046206915(1) dated 07.10.2022 of the CIT(Exemption) denying registration u/s clause-(ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income tax Act. 2.0 It is seen from records that there is delay of 462 days in filing of this appeal. The assesse has submitted that it was granted provisional approval on 27.11.2021 upto AY-2024-25. Therefore the assesse filed

ITA No.653/Chny/2023 :- 2 -:

Form-10AB seeking approval u/s 80G(5), Clause(ii) of 1st proviso, which was rejected ex-parte qua assesse and assesse learnt about it only when it received the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 20.02.2024 for AY 2022-23. The appellant had argued that it had submitted its correspondence email to the department as samykrishna@yahoo.co.in. On the contrary the department was sending all its communications on email ID samykrishna@yahoo.com as a result of which there was a case of unintended non-compliance to the departmental notices. Evidences brought on record allude that there is sufficient force in the assessee’s arguments. The delay in filing the appeal is therefore condoned and the appeal is being adjudicated as under. 3.0 As regards denial of the registration u/s 80G(Supra), through grounds of appeal in form 36, the assesse submitted non-compliance by the assesse was attributable to the notices issued by CIT(E) on wrong email address. The Ld.DR argued in favour of order of authorities down below. 4.0 We have considered the facts of the case in the light of arguments put forth. It is not that assesse had received provisional approval u/s 80G(5) Clause(IV) of 1st proviso on 20.11.2021 upto AY-2024-25. Therefore assesse applied for registration u/s 80G(5) Clause(ii) of 1st proviso, which was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) on the premise of willful

ITA No.653/Chny/2023 :- 3 -:

non-compliance. The fact of the matter remains that the assesse never received the departmental notices. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the Ld.CIT(E) for consideration of registration u/s 80G. Accordingly, the order of Ld.CIT(E) dated 07.10.2022 is set aside with the directions to reconsider the assessee’s application dated 20.04.2022 in Form-10AB for grant of registration u/s 80G. The assesse is directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) and the Ld.CIT(E) to hear the assessee and pass order in according to law. 5.0 In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 31st May, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- ( ABY T.VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) Judicial Member Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनांक/Dated: 31st May, 2024. KB/- आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Coimbatore / Salem 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि/DR 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF