M/S. LOVING PAWS FOUNDATION,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

There was a delay of 140 days in filing these appeals on account of non-receipt of the order of rejection of the application for registration u/s 12AA and u/s 80G(5) even on the e-mail address of hr.arfs@gmali.com provided in the income tax return duly supported with affidavit of Sh. Amit Jain Director of the assessee appellant trust attested by notary, Jalandhar, Punjab dated 2nd Aug., 2023. Considering the bonafide reason for the delay in filing the applications, the said delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh was not justified in rejecting applications of the assessee for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee as all three notices mentioned in the impugned order were not received on the registered e-mail id of the assessee and that non service of the notices is evident from the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department. He further submitted that even the impugned order of the rejections of the assessee’s application refusing to registration u/s 12AB thereof were not received on the registered e-mail id. of the assessee (ABP pg. 31). The above stated facts are duly supported in the affidavit of the Director of the Company Sh. Amit Jain who has been managing day to day affairs of the appellant trust which was being formed for charitable purposes (APB pg. 14 & 15). The appellant has pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

Per contra, the ld. DR stands by the impugned order, however he has no objection to the request of the assessee in view of the principle of natural justice.

We have heard the rival contention, perused the material on record and the impugned orders. Admittedly, the appellant assessee trust has not been served with the notices on the registered e-mail id as given on the Income Tax portal (ABP pg. 31). It is noted that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee for registration u/s 12AB of for non compliance to notices merely stating that it is not possible to ascertain the object and activities carried out by the applicant. Consequently she rejected the application for approval u/s 80G(5) in absence of registration u/s 12AB.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.