SHRI AMBA PRATISHTHAN ,AHMEDNAGAR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

2. The learned CIT (Exemption) Pune erred in law and on facts in not granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant to submit the details/ information.

3. The learned CIT (Exemption) Pune ought to have appreciated the facts that the appellant has submitted all the relevant documents/information as sought for from time to time by either uploading the same on the portal or by submitting the documents/information physically.

, and to seek any just and fair relief.”

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust incorporated on 03.06.2015 with objects to run schools and colleges for promoting educational, medical, social and sports activities. The assessee trust has filed application no. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE/2023-24/12AA/11267 in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act on 31.03.2023. After perusal of the application, ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune raised certain enquiries and in response to the same the assessee trust made the compliance. Subsequently, on 07.09.2023 some further information was required by ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune such as copy of regular registration u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(i) along with some other details. In response to the same, the assessee again furnished requisite information. Being unsatisfied with the reply of the assessee and also not satisfied about the genuineness of activities of the assessee trust, ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act and also cancelled the provisional approval granted on 18.10.2022 u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4. Ld. AR submitted before us that the order passed by ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not correct. It was submitted that if ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was not satisfied with the replies of the assessee he should have granted further opportunity to the assessee to submit the details/information. Ld. Counsel of the assessee contended that the assessee trust is duly registered u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the IT Act whereas ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has mentioned in his order rejecting the application of the assessee that the assessee trust has only furnished provisional registration u/s 12A and has not furnished permanent registration u/s 12A of the IT Act. It was submitted by ld. Counsel of the assessee that observation made by ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not correct, since copy of permanent registration u/s 12A(1) of the IT Act was filed before ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. In support of this contention, copy of e-filing acknowledgement was furnished before the Bench. It was submitted by ld. Counsel of the assessee that above reply along with supporting documents was filed on 12.09.2023 but the same was not considered by ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and the application for registration u/s 80G(5) was rejected. Regarding other observation made by ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in its order, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that if ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was not satisfied with replies of the assessee or any further supporting documents or evidences was required proper opportunity should have been allowed to the assessee in this regard. Accordingly, ld. Counsel of the assessee requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and also requested to provide one more opportunity so that assessee can submit relevant documents/information, if any, required by ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.

5. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue heavily relied on the order passed by ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and submitted that two opportunities were provided to the assessee but the relevant information/documents/evidence were not produced by the assessee trust. Accordingly, ld. DR requested before the Bench to confirm the order passed by ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.