EVERGREEN CITY CLUB,DINDIGUL V. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHENNAI

ITA 2164/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Evergreen City Club against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai, which were passed under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were consolidated due to their similar issues and facts. The primary contention was the rejection of Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB and the subsequent rejection of the application for approval under section 80G. The Tribunal found that the necessary documents submitted by the assessee were not considered by the CIT(E) in their decisions and thus remanded the matters for fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107453 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M. RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T.V. MUTHU ABIRAMI
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2163 & 2164/Chny/2024 Evergreen City Club, Sree Venkateshwara Thanga Dharapuram Road, Oddanchatram, Oddanchatram S.O. Dindigul 624 619. [PAN:AABAE6117C] Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M. Rajan, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 19.03.2024 & 21.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] respectively. 2. Since, the issue raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the both the parties, we proceed I.T.A. Nos.2163 & 2164/Chny/24 2 to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 2163/Chny/2024 for adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 88 days. The assessee filed a petition stating reasons for the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the petition, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time and accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee raised 9 grounds of appeal, amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(E) is justified in rejecting Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee filed online application on 30.09.2023 in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. The ld. CIT(E), while processing the application, asked the assessee to show-cause as to why its application should not be rejected on account of reasons mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order. In response to I.T.A. Nos.2163 & 2164/Chny/24 3 such show-cause notice, the assessee uploaded the details as reflecting in para 3.3 of the impugned order. According to the ld. CIT(E), the assessee failed to furnish the mandatory details as asked in the questionnaire. For having such no details, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee and cancelled provisional approval. 7. The ld. AR Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate drew our attention to the paper book at page 55 and submits that the assessee has submitted everything in detail, but, however, not considered by the ld. CIT(E). Further, she drew our attention to page 145 of the paper book and submits that all details as sought by the ld. CIT(E) were uploaded in response to the notice dated 07.03.2024. She argued that all details are furnished by the assessee and the ld. CIT(E) could not consider the same while processing Form 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. She prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. 8. The ld. DR Shri M. Rajan, CIT vehemently opposed the same. He drew our attention to para 4 of the impugned order and argued that the ld. CIT(E) clearly held that no details were submitted by the assessee as asked in the questionnaire. The ld. CIT(E) rightly rejected I.T.A. Nos.2163 & 2164/Chny/24 4 the application of the assessee as there was no mandatory details furnished by the assessee. He vehemently argued that the ground raised by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 9. Having considered the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and material evidence as filed by the assessee in the form of paper book, we note that the ld. CIT(E) passed order on 19.03.2024, but, however, there was no reference to documents as furnished vide pages 55 and 145 of the paper book. On perusal of the details as uploaded and indicated in the acknowledgement at pages 55 and 145, we are of the considered opinion that the relevant evidences in support of Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act are available with the ld. CIT(E). Since the ld. CIT(E) has not considered the relevant evidences, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 2164/Chny/2024 10. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 86 days. The assessee filed a petition stating reasons for the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the petition, we find that the I.T.A. Nos.2163 & 2164/Chny/24 5 reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time and accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 11. We find that the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application seeking approval under section 80G of the Act. Since we have taken a view in remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) in 12A(1)(ac)(iii) proceedings, the view taken by us is equally applicable to the application seeking approval under section 80G of the Act. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th October, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 29.10.2024 Vm/- I.T.A. Nos.2163 & 2164/Chny/24 6 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. "