AASHRAY CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1219/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 January 2024Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT denied the application without providing sufficient time to respond, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT (Exemption) issued a notice requiring information, but the assessee requested more time. The CIT denied the application without disposing of the adjournment request.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of registration and approval by the CIT was valid when insufficient time was given to the assessee to respond to a notice, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Hearing: 30.01.2024Pronounced: 30.01.2024

PER BENCH:

1.

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune [the CIT, Exemption] both dated 21.10.2023 denying registration u/s. 12AB(1)(ac)(vi) and approval u/s.80G(5)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a trust engaged in the business of running educational institutions. The appellant made an application on 18.05.2023 in Form No.10AB for grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act. In the extant appeal under consideration in the ld. CIT, Exemption issued a notice dt. 18.10.2023 through ITBA portal calling upon the appellant to file certain information/clarification. On receipt of this notice, the appellant society has moved an application on 17.10.2023 seeking further time to comply with the said notice, placed at page No.119 of the appeal memo. The ld. CIT, Exemption without disposing of the adjournment petition sought by the appellant had proceeded with the disposing of the application by denying the grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Act and accordingly cancelled the provisional registration granted on 21.10.2023. The assessee is in appeal before us assailing the impugned orders passed rejecting the application u/s.12AB as well as approval u/s.80G(5)(iv) of the Act.

3.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the appellant was asked to furnish certain information vide notice dated 13.10.2023 requesting the appellant society to file the details on or before 18.10.2023 thereby giving a short period of time i.e. less than one 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 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 in accordance with law. Since the impugned order cancelling the registration granted u/s.12AB of the Act has restored back in the circumstances mentioned therein, the appeal in filed against the denial of approval u/s.80G is also remitted back. We order accordingly.

4.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of January, 2024.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →