JAYANTARA DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Exemptions) - Pune grossly erred in rejecting the application submitted by the Appellant for grant of approval U/s 12Aof the I.T Act, 1961 which is illegal, invalid and against the principles of natural justice.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Exemptions) - Pune ought to have granted approval under section 12A to the Appellant as the Appellant has duly complied with all the conditions as prescribed under law for grant of approval under section 12AoftheAct.

Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR filed a paper book containing copies of submission made by assessee before the ld.CIT(E) dated 23.03.2023 and 31.01.2023. The ld.AR also filed a copy of note on activities. The ld.AR submitted that though assessee had filed elaborate reply before the ld.CIT(E), the ld.CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application on the ground that “No credible evidence filed by the assessee”.

Submission of ld.DR : 3. The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of ld.CIT(E).

2 Jayantara Development Foundation [A] Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee on the ground that assessee failed to furnish cogent evidence and hence genuineness of the activities of the assessee could not be proved.

5. On perusal of the submission filed by the assessee vide letter dated 31.01.2023 and 23.03.2023, it is observed that assessee had filed note on activities along with list of beneficiaries. It is a fact that assessee’s activities were recently started from April, 2021.As per the note on activities, assessee had carried following activities : i) Distributed Fruits, Soya Milk, Biscuits etc., to the poor patients admitted in general ward of Government Hospital. ii) Provided financial assistance to pay medical bills of some patients. iii) Reimbursed Education Fee of some children belonging to Lower Economic Class.

3 Jayantara Development Foundation [A] 4.1 It has been claimed by assessee that the assessee had filed copies of bills, invoices and list of beneficiaries.

4.2 However, ld.CIT(E) has merely rejected application on the ground that no evidence has been filed. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity to the assessee.