AIM TRUST,VILLUPURAM vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 451/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the assessee is a trust. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order due to non-compliance and directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing, in light of a recent CBDT circular extending the deadline.

What were the facts?

The assessee, AIM Trust, filed an appeal against the denial of registration under Section 80G(5) by the CIT(E). There was a significant delay in filing the appeal, attributed to a bona fide belief of extension and medical conditions of the Managing Director.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the CIT(E) should reconsider the application for registration on merits.

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 MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by denial of registration u/s. 80G(5) by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai [CIT(E)] vide impugned order dated 18-01-2023, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

The Registry has noted delay of 339 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is supported by an affidavit of Managing Director of assessee Trust. It has been submitted therein that the assessee was under a bona-fide belief that time limit would be extended further by way of Circular. It has also been submitted that managing director was facing adverse medical condition. Though Ld. CIT-DR has opposed condonation of delay, considering the fact that the assessee is a trust, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication on merits.

3.

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee failed to respond to the show-cause notices and it could not file the requite details / clarifications. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for non-compliance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

4.

Considering the recent Circular No.07/24 issued by CBDT on 25.04.2024 extending time limit for all such applications to 30.06.2024 and also considering the fact that the assessee could not make any representation, we set aside the impugned order and direct Ld. CIT(E) to consider the application on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 6th May, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद4 / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद4 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ईChennai; िदनांकDated : 06-05-2024 DS आदेशकीPितिलिपअ/ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/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 →