LIONS CLUB OF PUNE SUPREME TRUST,NARAYAN PETH, LAXMI RAOD, PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, PUNE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SETH ROAD, PUNE

We have heard rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused material placed on record. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate 297 days delay in instituting the present appeal, we condoned the same in the larger interest of justice and after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC). ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3

We observed that, the appellant trust applied for 80G registration under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act on 29/09/2022. Upon perusal of Form 10AB and accompanying documents, the Ld. CIT(E) by issue of notice dt. 10/01/2023 called upon the appellant to substantiate the existence and genuineness of its activities and to furnish certain information / clarification etc., however assessee trust failed to comply therewith. The assessee vide notice dt. 30/01/2023 was again granted one more opportunity to make good the shortcoming, however this notice also went futile. In the event of failure of appellant to place on records requisite material to enable to arrive at positive satisfaction, the Ld. CIT(E) proceeded on the basis of information on records, and concluded the activities of the appellant lacks genuinity, consequently rejected its application and cancelled the provisional 80G granted to the appellant assessee on 23/09/2021.

From page 33/33 of paper book submitted by the appellant trust we note that, owning to death of chairman & trustee Mr Hasmukh Ramaniklal Mehta and consequential election to the post the notices issued to the trust requiring compliance were remained un-attended. The circumstance suggest without an iota of doubt that, the non-compliance was on the part of assessee was undeliberate & attributable to reasonable cause there behind, for which the appellant seeks one more opportunity to represent its case and comply with the requirements of law and cure the defects. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 3

The Ld. DR could hardly object the prayer in the evince of death certificate placed on records.

In these facts and circumstance, without offering any comment on merits of the case, we hold that, for a sufficient cause the appellant was prevented from complying with the notices issued during the course of impugned proceedings. For the reasons and in the larger interest of justice we deem it fit to accord one more opportunity to the appellant to represent its case on merits, in consequence we set-aside the impugned order of rejection and cancellation of 80G. As a result we remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the issue of grant of 80G recognition to the assessee a fresh in accordance with law, preferably in three effective hearings.