SHARP EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHIWANDI vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, PUNE

Today, when the matter was called on, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that appellant e-filed appeal twice impugning the same order, both of them got registered and numbered as & 1208/PUN/2024. Therefore, the latter appeal is treated as ‘Infructuous’ and dismissed as such.

Being aggrieved, the appellant trust is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal assailing the impugned order denying the grant of registration u/s.12AB.

Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(Exemption) rejected the application Form filed u/s.10AB filed by the appellant trust by adopting hyper technical approach. Further, notice was given on 27.02.2024 for the compliance on or before 05.03.2024. Therefore, the appellant trust was not given sufficient opportunity to submit the details/information. In the interest of justice, it is therefore prayed for remanding the matter to the file of CIT(Exemption).

On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. He submitted that the ld. CIT(Exemption) only on consideration of the submissions put-forth by the appellant trust had rightly rejected the application filed by the appellant trust. Therefore, no interference by this Tribunal is called for.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find, in the present case, the assessee trust filed application in Form No.10AB dated 23.09.2023 seeking registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. On mere perusal of the contents of para no.2.2 and 2.3 of the impugned order, it would reveal that notice was issued to the appellant trust through ITBA portal on 27.02.2024 requesting the appellant trust to file explanation to the discrepancies pointed out in the above notice, on or before 05.03.2024. Undisputedly, the time given to the appellant trust for compliance is less than a week, which is against the Standard Operative Procedure (‘SOP’) issued by the CBDT dated 19.11.2020, wherein, minimum period of 15 days is required to be given to the assessee to comply with notices u/s 142(1) from the date of issue of the notice. Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dauphin Travel Marketing Private Limited vs. ITO in W.P.(C) 8870/2023 & CM Nos.33516-17/2023 dated 05.07.2023 taking note of this SOP held that the grant of insufficient time to respond the notice violates the principles of natural justice and, therefore, set- aside the assessment. Thus, it is clear that the appellant trust was given unreasonably very short period of time to respond to the notice, which is against the principles of natural justice. In the light of the aforesaid facts mentioned above, we find that the approach adopted by the ld. CIT (Exemption) is unreasonable and violates of the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the file of ld. CIT (Exemption) for de novo consideration of application in accordance with law.