AL JAMIYYA TUL ISLAMIYYAD AT TALIMIYYAH WAL KHAIRIYYAH KAUSA,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) incorrectly held that details were not submitted, as evidence on record indicated otherwise. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee already had registration under Section 12AA, with similar conditions to Section 80G.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for registration under Section 80G was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) for not submitting details of employees/teachers and donations. The assessee contended that these details were not requested and were submitted when asked.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Exemption) was justified in rejecting the Section 80G application without proper inquiry and considering the submitted evidence, and if the conditions for Section 12AA registration imply satisfaction for Section 80G.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 05-10-2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune.
The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for consideration is as to whether the CIT(Exemption) justified in rejecting the application filed seeking registration u/s. 80G of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. We note that on perusal of Para No. 3 of impugned order that the CIT(Exemption) clearly held that the assessee has not submitted any supporting evidences in respect of details of employees/teachers regarding the payment of salaries. The ld. AR, Shri Girish Dave submits that the said details were not sought by the CIT(Exemption) in the proceedings and drew our attention to Page Nos. 92 to 94 of the paper book and argued that nowhere in Q. Nos. 1 to 21 the CIT(Exemption) asked for the details of employees/teachers and the details of payment of salaries. His contention is that without asking any details of such information regarding the list of employees/teachers and payment of salaries and denying the application for recognition u/s. 80G of the Act are against the principles of natural justice. On perusal of Page Nos. 92 to 94 which was issued to the assessee by the CIT(Exemption) requesting to upload following informations in the process of proceedings, we find nowhere amongst the 21 Questions no details in that regard sought by the CIT(Exemption). Further, on perusal of Para No. 3.1 of the impugned order, we note that the CIT(Exemption) held no details regarding the receipt of donations were submitted by the assessee. The ld. AR drew our attention to Page No. 433 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee furnished all the details as sought by the CIT(Exemption) vide its notice dated 28-07-2020 and drew our attention to Page Nos. 436 to 440 of the paper book. On perusal of Page No. 436 of the paper book it is clear that the assessee had given additional documents in response to the notice issued by the CIT(Exemption) dated 28-07-2020, further, perusal shows the details of general donation and corpus donation were attached for the consideration. Further, Page Nos. 439 and 440 shows that the assessee clearly stated that the additional documents which were submitted online vide date of submissions dated 31-12-2020 also uploaded the acknowledgment receipts of its submissions dated 22- 06-2020. Therefore, it is clear having the details regarding the donations the CIT(Exemption) held no details were submitted, in our opinion is contrary to the material evidences on record. Further, we note that the CIT(Exemption) basing on the view taken regarding the above that non submissions of details of employees/teachers, payment of salaries and list of donations and donors denying the registration u/s. 80G of the Act is not justified. Therefore, in view of the relevant evidences having filed before us in the form of paper book containing Page Nos. 1 to 547, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(Exemption) for its fresh consideration.
4. Further, we note that the registration u/s. 12AA of the Act was granted to the assessee on 26-10-2018 and it is needless to say that the assessee has satisfied all the conditions that are required for granting of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the conditions enumerated u/s. 12AA of the Act are in pari materia with the conditions as enumerated u/s. 80G of the Act, in our view, when the stringent conditions u/s. 12AA of the Act is satisfied by the assessee and when the conditions therein are similar to the conditions u/s. 80G of the Act, denying the recognition u/s. 80G of the Act, in our opinion is not justified. Thus, the CIT(Exemption) shall examine material evidences and pass order to give an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th October, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 20th October, 2021. RK आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Exemption), Pune ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 4. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 5. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
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 →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026