KALPAKTA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,SIRSI vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, PUNE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
ITA no.135/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : N.A.) Kalpakta Education Foundation C/o Shri Ashok Pandurang Borikar ……………. Appellant Sirsi District Nagpur 441 214 PAN – AAICK7414M v/s Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Exemptions, Pune Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Date of Hearing – 03/09/2024 Date of Order – 03/09/2024
O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 15/01/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, [“learned CIT(E)”].
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–
“1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellant's application for registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961. 2. The appellant contents the actions of learned CIT (Exemption) as the appellant has filed a detailed submission in response to notice dated 19/12/2023 and the same are not corrupt files. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; passed the order without considering reply filled by appellant on 19/12/2023
2 Kalpakta Education Foundation ITA no.135/Nag./2024
The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 12AB of the ITA, 1961; to submit the details / information. As such, the rejection order passed by the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; is bad in law and needs to be set-aside. Learned CIT(Exemption) ought to have decided the matters on merits i.e. on the tests of bonafide objects, genuine activity, etc. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.”
During the course of hearing, when the case was called for, neither the assessee nor any of its authorised representative appeared before us to assist the Bench in disposing of the appeal filed by the assessee. However, we proceed to dispose of this appeal ex–parte qua the assessee appellant and after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.
Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a not–for–profit charitable organisation registered under section 8 of Companies Act, 2013, having its objective to work for the welfare of the children. The assessee filed its regular application under section 12AB r/w section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for grant of provisional registration. The assessee, in response to the notice dated 20/10/2023, issued by the learned CIT(E), submitted various information and documents. Again on 13/12/2023, the learned CIT(A) issued notice requesting the assessee to furnish various documents and provide information, in response to which the assessee, on 19/12/2023, furnished all the details and made submissions through ITBA portal, as sought by the learned CIT(E). Again on 29/12/2023, in response to the e–mail dated 27/12/2023, sent by the learned CIT(E), the assessee filed all the details through ITBA portal as required. However, the learned CIT(E), rejected the
3 Kalpakta Education Foundation ITA no.135/Nag./2024
application filed by the assessee for grant of provisional registration on the ground that the details and written submissions furnished by the assessee through ITBA portal on 19/12/2023, could not be opened. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned Departmental Representative submitted before us that the attachment sent through ITBA portal could not be opened. as the attachments contained corrupt files with no data/files therein and each folder displaying size “under 0 kb”. Hence, the learned CIT(E) has correctly rejected the assessee’s application.
We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application for grant of provisional registration despite forwarding of all the details and Written Submissions made by the assessee, on the ground that the learned CIT(E) could not be able to open the files/material uploaded in the ITBA portal by the assessee. In our considered opinion, the learned CIT(E) not been able to open the files / material uploaded in the ITBA portal is not the problem of the assessee and it is the problem of the ITBA portal and, therefore, such negligence cannot be attributed to the assessee thereby rejecting the application for grant of provisional registration which is unreasonable and unjust. Consequently, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order dated 15/01/2024, passed by the learned CIT(E) and restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(E) to re–consider the
4 Kalpakta Education Foundation ITA no.135/Nag./2024
issue by passing an order in accordance with law and keeping in view our aforesaid observations and findings. We also direct the assessee to file all the details before the learned CIT(E) once the assessee receives notice in this regard. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on
Sd/- Sd/- K.M. ROY V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur
