ABODE OF JOY,CHENNAI V. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

ITA 2391/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the trust, Abode of Joy, which appealed against the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai, rejecting their applications for approval under section 80G and registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The initial rejection was due to the trust's non-participation in the proceedings and failure to furnish necessary documents. The Tribunal noted the trust's failure to respond to notices and considered the delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the trust's unawareness of the rejection orders until August 2025. The Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for the trust to present its case, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787256 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARV SREENIVASAN
• Assessee Lawyers: J. SARAVANAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,‘डी’ यायपीठ,चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI \u0014ी मनु क ुमार ग\u0018र , या\u0019यक सद य एवं \u0014ी एस .आर .रघुनाथा, लेखा सद य क े सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.2390 & 2391/CHNY/2025 (\u0019नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year:-) Abode of Joy, No.11, 5th Street, Kabali Nagar, Adhanur Road, Guduvancherry, Chennai - 603 202. vs. The CIT (Exemptions), Chennai. [PAN: AAETA-3625-R] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/Appellant by : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate. '(यथ& क) ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT. सुनवाई क) तार ख/Date of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा क) तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM: These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”), rejecting the approval sought u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rejecting the registration sought u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act ,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA Nos. 2390 & 2391/Chny/2025 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 182 days before us in both the appeals filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavit stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee was unaware of the order of the rejections uploaded in the Income-Tax e-filing portal during the relevant period and the orders of the ld.CIT(E) were noticed in the 1st week of August 2025 and filed the appeals against the order of the rejections on 29.08.2025. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeals and admit the appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee is a trust and filed an application dated 26.06.2024 in Form 10AB under Rule 11AA, seeking approval under (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act and also filed an application dated 26.06.2024 in Form No.10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Act. The ld.CIT(E) rejected the said applications dated 06.12.2024 due to non- participation of the assessee in the proceedings and failing to furnish relevant documents/details and its clarification, as the limitation of time for disposal of the applications expires by 31.12.2024. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(E) has provided two opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 3.1 of the ld.CIT(E) Printed from counselvise.com :-3-: ITA Nos. 2390 & 2391/Chny/2025 order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(E), Chennai rejected the applications as “not maintainable” by passing orders dated 06.12.2024. 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee has failed to take note of hearing notices sent through e-mail, resulting in non-participation of assessee during the appellate proceedings. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the ld.CIT(E) as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the ld.CIT(E) provided sufficient opportunity to furnish relevant documents/details and its clarification either by uploading online in the e-filing portal or by post. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(E). 7. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of ld.CIT(E). We note that the ld.CIT(E) has passed orders by considering the material available on record and the applications have been rejected by the ld.CIT(E) due to non-submission of the relevant documents/details and its clarification either by uploading online in the e- filing portal or by post. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.4,000/-(Rs.2,000/- for each appeal) to Printed from counselvise.com :-4-: ITA Nos. 2390 & 2391/Chny/2025 be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Hence, we set aside the orders of the ld.CIT(E) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(E) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 20th November, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार ग\u0018र) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) या\u0019यक सद य/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member चे नई/Chennai, -दनांक/Dated, the 20th November, 2025 sp Printed from counselvise.com :-5-: ITA Nos. 2390 & 2391/Chny/2025 आदेश क\b त ल\u000eप अ\u0011े\u000eषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant 2. '(यथ&/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु.त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. /वभागीय '\u0019त\u0019न ध/DR 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "