CHAGANAM LALITHAMMA & BHASKAR RAO MEMORIAL TRUST,HYDERABAD V. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 374/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Chaganam Lalithamma and Bhaskar Rao Memorial Trust against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), which had rejected the Trust's applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Hyderabad. The Tribunal noted procedural deficiencies in the initial orders, such as the absence of conclusive findings and incomplete reasoning, leading to the decision to remand the cases for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398121 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P VINOD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"ITA Nos 373 and 374 of 2025 Chaganam Lalithamma and Bhaskar Rao Memorial Trust Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.373 & 374/Hyd/2025 Chaganam Lalithamma & Bhaskar Rao Memorial Trust, Hyderabad PAN:AACTC8344D Vs. Dy.CIT Circle 5 (1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri P Vinod, Advocate राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 05/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/06/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President These 2 appeals by the assessee are directed against the 2 separate orders dated 7/12/2024 and 11/12/2024 of the learned CIT (Exemption) whereby the application for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act were rejected. 2. There is a delay of 1 day in filing these two appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. 3. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR on condonation of delay of 1 day and perused the contents of ITA Nos 373 and 374 of 2025 Chaganam Lalithamma and Bhaskar Rao Memorial Trust Page 2 of 6 the affidavit filed by the assessee. The Managing Trustee of the assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit as under: 4. Accordingly, having considered the reasons explained by the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was having sufficient cause for the delay of one day in filing this appeal and therefore, the same is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No373/Hyd/2025 “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(E) is erroneous both on facts and in law, is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in disposing of application for registration under section 12AB of the Act without any finding. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” ITA Nos 373 and 374 of 2025 Chaganam Lalithamma and Bhaskar Rao Memorial Trust Page 3 of 6 ITA No.374/Hyd/2025 “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(E) is erroneous both on facts and in law, is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in not granting approval u/s.80OG of the Act on the alleged ground that no substantial activities which are charitable in nature are being carried out by the Appellant, and that the same are in violation of the provisions of Section 80G of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in not mentioning which are the activities carried out by the Appellant are not charitable in nature and thereby erred in passing cryptic order rejecting the application filed under Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s.80G of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 6. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has pointed out that the impugned order dated 7/12/2024 is not a complete order and there is no finding given by the learned CIT (E) in the said order. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that non-grant of registration to the assessee and passing an incomplete order is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 7. The learned DR has not disputed the fact that there is mistake in the impugned order as the concluding part in the order is missing. 8. Having considered the rival submission and careful perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned CIT (E) has passed the impugned order as under: ITA Nos 373 and 374 of 2025 Chaganam Lalithamma and Bhaskar Rao Memorial Trust Page 4 of 6 9. Thus, it is clear that after reproducing the notice issued by the learned CIT (E) to the assessee, there is no finding given in the order which is apparently an incomplete and inconclusive order passed by the CIT(E). Thus, the impugned order without giving the concluding finding is non-est one and liable to be set aside. We order accordingly. Since the learned CIT (E) has not decided the application of the assessee seeking registration u/s 12AB by a proper and valid order, therefore, the ITA Nos 373 and 374 of 2025 Chaganam Lalithamma and Bhaskar Rao Memorial Trust Page 5 of 6 matter is remanded to the record of the CIT (E) for re- consideration of the application and deciding the same by a speaking order on the basis of the relevant facts as well as the documents/details filed by the assessee. ITA No.374/Hyd/2024 10. In the appeal against the rejection of application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (E) has rejected the application on the ground that no substantial charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee. The learned AR has submitted that this finding of the learned CIT (E) is without considering the relevant documentary evidence and details filed by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the CIT (E) be directed to grant the approval u/s 80G of the Act. 11. On the other hand, the learned DR has fairly submitted that since the matter regarding registration u/s 12AB has been remanded to the record of the learned CIT (E) for fresh adjudication, therefore, this matter may also be remanded to the record of the CIT (E) for re-consideration of the application along with the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. 12. Having considered the rival submission and careful perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned CIT (E) has given the reasons for rejection of the application for approval u/s 80G of the Act in para 3 of the order as under: ITA Nos 373 and 374 of 2025 Chaganam Lalithamma and Bhaskar Rao Memorial Trust Page 6 of 6 13. Since we have already remanded the matter of registration u/s 12AB of the Act for fresh adjudication after examination of the relevant record, therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIT (E) is also set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (E) for reconsideration of the approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 in accordance with the same terms and directions. 14. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on the conclusion of hearing i.e. on 5th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 5th June, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Chaganam Lalithamma & Bhaskar Rao Memorial Trust, Flat No.820, Bhagat Singh Nagar Colony, Near Rajarajeswary Temple, Vasant Nagar, JNTU, Kukatapally, Hyderabad 500085 2 Dy. CIT, Circle 5(1) IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500004 3 Pr. CIT - Exemption 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "