KOLHAPUR JILHA BRAMHAN PUROHIT SANGH,KOLHAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application without considering the merits or the adjournment request. The CIT(Exemption) failed to adjudicate on whether the trust's objects were charitable and if its activities met Section 80G(5) requirements.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the application solely on the ground that the assessee failed to submit a copy of the regular approval, instead providing a provisional approval.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of the 80G application based on the type of approval submitted was justified, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune dated 03.10.2023. The grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as under :
1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption has erred in rejecting the Application filed under Clause (ii) of first proviso to Kolhapur Jilha Bramhan Purohit Sangh [A] sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact that 15 days adjournment was sought by the assessee.
2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption deserves to be set-aside on the footing that request for adjournment was on record but was not considered.
3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption has erred in rejecting the Application filed under Clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, without granting proper opportunity of being heard. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.
4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessee is eligible for registration under Clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Hence, registration be granted to assessee.
5. The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, revise, substitute, delete or alter any/all of the above grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
1.1 We have heard ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue & perused the records.
Findings and analysis: 2. In this case, the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) has rejected the application of the assessee Kolhapur Jilha Bramhan Purohit Sangh [A] dated 11/04/2023 filed in Form 10AB for approval u/s 80G of the Act, only on one ground that the application is not maintainable as the assessee failed to file copy of Regular Approval under section 80G of the Act earlier issued to the assessee. However, assessee had filed copy of Provisional Approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. The relevant paragraph 4.1 of the ld.CIT(E)’s order is reproduced here as under : “4.1 The assessee was specifically requested vide the initial notice to furnish the copy f order of regular approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 196". Such copy is actually required to be furnished along with the application itself under the provisions of Rule 11AA(2)(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the assessee has neither submitted the s-me along with the application nor in response to the notice issued in this regard. Thus the assessee failed to furnish the same. The copy of order submitted by the assessee along with the present applicant in is a copy of provisional approval under section 80G(5)(vi) read with clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of ‘die Income Tax Act, 1961 and not a copy of regular approval under section 80G(5)(vi) read with clause (i) or clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The non-submission of copy of order of regular approval under section 80G(5)(v ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 establishes the fact that the prerequisite for application under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 196 is not fulfilled Kolhapur Jilha Bramhan Purohit Sangh [A] in this case. Therefore, prima-facie it appears that the application is not maintainable.
5. In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is treated as non-maintainable and hence, ‘rejected’ for statistical purpose without going into the merits of the case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.”
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has not discussed the merits of the case. He held that the application is not maintainable. It is an admitted position that assessee had filed copy of trust deed and copy of three years financials. However, ld.CIT(E) has not discussed the objects of the assessee and has also not considered the financials filed by assessee to understand the activities of the assessee. It has been claimed by assessee that assessee had filed adjournment application before the ld.CIT(E), but ld.CIT(E) without considering the adjournment application adjudicated. Thus, it seems that assessee intended to file all the details called for. Be it as it may be, the ld.CIT(E) needs to adjudicate on the issue whether the objects of the trust are charitable in nature and whether activities carried out by the assessee fulfill the requirements of Section 80G(5) of the Act. The ld.CIT(E) failed to adjudicate on these issues. Kolhapur Jilha Bramhan Purohit Sangh [A]
In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The assessee shall be provided opportunity of hearing. The assessee shall file all the necessary documents as called for by ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th January, 2024.
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026