SALAFIYA EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1215/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 December 2024Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the time granted for compliance by the CIT(Exemption) was unreasonable. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications citing non-compliance and discrepancies after issuing multiple notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration and approval was justified due to alleged non-compliance, considering the short time provided for response.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 80G(5),Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Kudva
For Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Hearing: 04.12.2024Pronounced: 09.12.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are directed against the orders framed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune both dated 28.03.2024 denying grant of registration u/s.12A and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

ITA No.1215/PUN/2024 :

2.

Tersely, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed application on Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act for grant of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act on 26.09.2023. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a notice through ITBA portal on 17.11.2023 calling upon the appellant trust to file certain information/clarification. The appellant filed the requisite details. However, the ld.CIT(E) issued another notice to the appellant on 14.02.2024 pointing out certain discrepancies (para 2.2 of the impugned order). The assessee responded to the said notice on 23.02.2024. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(E) issued another notice on 24.03.2024 communicating certain other discrepancies. There was no compliance by the assessee to such notice. In the circumstances, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the appellant, thereby cancelling the provisional registration granted to it by observing as under :

“3.2. Since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing to say in the matter.

4.

Considering the above facts discussed in the show notice and discrepancies noticed and also that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the provisions of Rule 17A(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 in spite giving sufficient opportunities, the undersigned is unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance of requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the assessee as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects.

5.

In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected and the provisional registration granted on 08/12/2022 under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.”

3.

Aggrieved appellant approached the Tribunal challenging the impugned order denying grant of registration u/s.12A of the Act.

4. We have heard the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We note that the ld.CIT(A) issued notice dated 24.03.2024 to the appellant fixing the date of compliance as 27.03.2024, non-compliance of which led to passing of the impugned order. We find obviously the time allowed to the appellant for compliance is unreasonable. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, lack of proper and fair opportunity having been granted to appellant trust and the principles of natural justice being fair to both the parties. Considering the same, we are of the view that the appellant was for sufficient cause prevented from prosecuting the appeal effectively, therefore deserves to be given one more opportunity to prove its case on merits. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, we set-aside the impugned order under challenge and remit back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to the stage of its institution with a direction to adjudicate the subject matter denovo in accordance with law after providing three effective opportunities and pass a speaking order. Appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(E). It should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.1214/PUN/2024 :

5. The instant appeal is against the order framed by ld.CIT(A) denying grant of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act. Since we have remanded the issue of grant of registration to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit the issue of grant of approval u/s.80G(5) as well to the file of ld.CIT(E), being consequential, for denovo adjudication.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 09th day of December, 2024.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →