SONIYA HOLKAR CHARITABLE TRUST,NASHIK vs. CIT (E), PUNE

The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are directed against the orders framed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune both dated 08.08.2024 denying grant of registration u/s.12A and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

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 12.02.2024. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a notice through ITBA portal on 03.05.2024 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 29.07.2024 pointing out certain discrepancies (para 4 of the impugned order). There was no compliance from the side of appellant 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 :

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.

Aggrieved appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal assailing the impugned order denying grant of registration u/s.12A of the Act.

When the matter was called for, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance from the side of Ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the appellant.

The ld. DR submitted that ample opportunities were given to the appellant and the appellant has not complied with any of the notices sent to it. The ld.CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application filed by it. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT(E) should be confirmed.

We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the relevant material on record. 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 commenting on merits, 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.

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