HINJEWADI CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,PUNE V. CIT (E), PUNE

ITA 2464/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Hinjewadi Cultural Association against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, which rejected the applications for registration under sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not provided sufficient opportunities for the assessee to present its case and that there were communication issues with the tax consultant, leading to delays and non-compliance with procedural requirements. The Tribunal noted the extension of the deadline for filing applications as per a CBDT circular, which the CIT(E) had not considered. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472336 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12A; 80G

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : N.A. Hinjewadi Cultural Association, Blue Ridge Township, Tower-2, Flat-1501, Hinjewadi Phase-1, Rajiv Gandhi National Park, Pune – 411057. PAN: AADAH9057Q V s The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR Revenue by Shri Amol Khairnar – CIT(DR) Date of hearing 17/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: These two appeal filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s.12A and u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) respectively. ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 2 1.1 For the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 225 and 220 days in filing of the appeal in ITA No.2464/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2465/PUN/2024 respectively. Common reason for the delay as stated in the Affidavit is on account of the Email-Id of erstwhile tax consultant. The erstwhile tax consultant did not communicate regarding rejection of appellant’s applications. He further submitted that there was a valid reason for delay which has been elaborately explained in Affidavit. Considering the fact that assessee would not have gained by delaying in filing of the instant appeal, we, in the interest of justice condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2.1 The assessee in ITA No.2464/PUN/2024 has raised the following ground(s) of appeal : “1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellant's application for registration u/s 80G of ITA, 1961 2. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and facts in rejecting appellant's registration u/s 80G only on account of application for final registration is filed beyond prescribed time limit. The learned CIT (Exemption) ought to have appreciated that appellant's ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 3 activities are genuine and bonafide and as such, eligible for registration u/s 80G of ITA, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the due date for filing of Form 10AB for application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) has been extended till 30/06/2024 as per CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25 April, 2024. Consequently, the appellant's application for regular registration under clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is within the prescribed timeline and should not have been treated as delayed application. 4. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 80G of the ITA. 1961, to submit the details / information. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen to ensure complete and total compliance as so required, and the present situation is simply a fall-out of communication gap. 5. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, ought to have appreciated the fact that appellant has submitted majority of the details/documents. The learned CIT (Exemption) erred in concluding that the appellant did not comply with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the provisions of Rule 11AA(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Despite providing partial documentation and explanations, the CIT (Exemption) failed to assess the genuineness of the appellant's activities. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.” ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 4 2.2 The assessee in ITA No.2465/PUN/2024 has raised the following ground(s) of appeal : “1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellant's application for registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961 2. The learned CIT(Exemption), Pune; ought to have appreciated that appellant’s activities are genuine and bonafide, and as such, eligible for registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961. 3. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and facts in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 12AB of the ITA, 1961; to submit the details / information. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen to ensure complete and total compliance as so required, and the present situation is simply a fall-out of communication gap. 4. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in concluding that the appellant did not comply with Section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Despite providing partial documentation and explanations, the CIT(Exemption) failed to assess the genuineness of the appellant’s activities and its compliance with relevant laws. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.” ITA No.2465/PUN/2024 : 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12(A)(1)(ac) of the Act, dated 30.09.2023 In order to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and in compliance to requirements of any ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 5 other law for the time being in force by the trust / institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice dated 22.11.2023 was issued through ITBA Portal requesting the assessee to upload certain information / clarification. However, assessee did not respond to the said notice. Hence, the ld.CIT(E) issued another notice on 21.12.2023 requesting the assessee to submit the compliance by 27.12.2023. The assessee responded to the said notice on 10.01.2024. 3.1 On perusal of the those details complied by assessee, the ld.CIT(E) found certain discrepancies for which he issued another notice dated 31.01.2024 asking the assessee to furnish certain other details and also the assessee was show caused as to why the application should not be rejected. However, assessee failed to comply to the said notices and neither submitted explanation to the show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. Ld.CIT(E) therefore, rejected the application filed by the assessee for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier under section 12AB of the Act. ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 6 4. Aggrieved with such order of ld.CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before this Tribunal, the ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that necessary compliance could not be made before the ld.CIT(E) And therefore prayed for one more opportunity to go before the ld.CIT(E) and also to submit necessary details including credible evidence to prove the genuineness of charitable activity carried out by the assessee. 6. On the other hand, ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue supported the order of ld.CIT(E). 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that after the assessee filed certain details in response to the notice issued by ld.CIT(E). Certain discrepancies were noticed by him for which he issued another notice asking the assessee to make its submission clarifying the discrepancies. Even various opportunities of being heard to assessee were given by ld.CIT(E), but assessee failed to avail the opportunities. Ld.CIT(E) was thus not satisfied about the charitable nature and the genuineness of activities of the assessee and rejected the application ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 7 for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier under section 12AB of the Act. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, lack of proper and fair opportunity having been granted to appellant trust and the principles of natural justice for being fair to both the parties. Considering the same, we are of the view that the appellant was for sufficient cause prevented from prosecuting the appeal effectively, therefore deserves to be given one more opportunity to prove its case on merits. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, we set-aside the impugned order under challenge and remit them back to the file of Ld.CIT(E) to the stage of its institution with a direction to adjudicate the subject matter denovo in accordance with law after providing three effective opportunities and after considering the replies of the assessee(if filed) shall pass a speaking order. The Assessee is directed to provide correct Email-Id to the Department for getting notices through ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise required. ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 8 Accordingly, grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2465/PUN/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.2464/PUN/2024 : 10. We find that application under Clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act was filed in 30.05.2023. The ld.CIT(E) rejected the application on account of barred by limitation. However, ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to the Circular No.07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 stated that time limit for filing of application on Form 10AB was extended up to 30.06.2024 and therefore, the application of the assessee is within the prescribed time limit. The prayer was made to restore the appeal to the ld.CIT(E). 11. In these facts and circumstances, since application of the assessee u/s.80G(5) of the Act dated 30.05.2023 is not barred by limitation, we set-aside the impugned order under 80G to ld.CIT(E) and restore it to the file of ld.CIT(E) for necessary adjudication in accordance with Law. The ld.CIT(E) shall give fair opportunity to ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 9 the assessee of being heard. Accordingly, grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2464/PUN/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose. 13. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 24th Mar, 2025/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "