BRAINGYAN FOUNDATION, THANE V. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 3093/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Braingyan Foundation appealing against the rejection of their registration applications under sections 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) had rejected these applications citing insufficient specific details about the activities carried out by the trust. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case and that the decisions were made without a thorough examination of the specific activities of the trust. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the previous orders and remand the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123181 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material
• Section: 80G; 12AA; 10(23C)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3092/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2022-23 & ITA No. 3093/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Braingyan Foundation, B/101, Mangalmurti Complex, New Thakurli Road, Balaji Nagar, Dombivali (East)-421201, Thane Vs. CIT(Exemptions), Room No. 322, 3 rd floor, Income Tax Office, PMT Building, Shankar Seth Road, Pune, Maharashtra-411037. PAN No. AADTB 7252 L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 08/02/2023 Date of pronouncement : 13/02/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Pune (in short ‘the Ld. CIT’) rejecting the application of the assessee seeking registrationu/s 12AA and u short ‘the Act’) respectively 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal (i.e. ITA No. 3092/Mum/2022) against rejection of registration u/s 12AA are reproduced as under: 1. Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Exemption, Pune U/s 12AA [DIN:ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022 in law as (a) it seems that the Judicial Mind has not been applied, (b) the Proper Reasonable Opportunity of being Heard has not been given & (c) Rejected only for the want of No the Activities of the Trust or Rebutting the same for its compliance and therefore the aforesaid Original Order passed may please be restored. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee 3093/Mum/2022 challenging rejection u/s 80G reproduced as under: “1. Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Exemption, Pune U/s 12AB rws 80G(5)(iii) dated 31/10/2022 (DIN:/TBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022 in law as (a) it seems that the Judicial Mind ha applied, (b) the Proper Reasonable Opportunity of being Heard has not been given & (c) Rejected only for the want of Note on the Activities of the Trust or Rebutting the same for its compliance and therefore the aforesaid Original Order passed may please be restored 4. We find that despite notifying behalf of the assessee. written submission filed by the assessee are already on record, we Braingyan ITA No. u/s 12AA and u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in respectively. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal (i.e. ITA No. 3092/Mum/2022) against rejection of registration u/s 12AA are reproduced as under: 1. Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Exemption, Pune U/s 12AA (1)(b)(1) dated 30/09/202 [DIN:ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/1046535722(1)] is Bad in law as (a) it seems that the Judicial Mind has not been applied, (b) the Proper Reasonable Opportunity of being Heard has not been given & (c) Rejected only for the want of No the Activities of the Trust or Rebutting the same for its compliance and therefore the aforesaid Original Order passed may please be restored. raised by the assessee in appeal bearing ITA No. 3093/Mum/2022 challenging rejection u/s 80G reproduced as under: 1. Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Exemption, Pune U/s 12AB rws 80G(5)(iii) dated 31/10/2022 (DIN:/TBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/1046535844(1)] is Bad in law as (a) it seems that the Judicial Mind ha applied, (b) the Proper Reasonable Opportunity of being Heard has not been given & (c) Rejected only for the want of Note on the Activities of the Trust or Rebutting the same for its compliance and therefore the aforesaid Original Order passed ay please be restored.” espite notifying for the hearing none attended on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of the record, we found that written submission filed by the assessee are already on record, we Braingyan Foundation 2 ITA No. 3092 & 3093/M/2022 AY 2022-23 tax Act, 1961 (in The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal (i.e. ITA No. 3092/Mum/2022) against rejection of registration u/s 12AA are 1. Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1)(b)(1) dated 30/09/202 23/1046535722(1)] is Bad in law as (a) it seems that the Judicial Mind has not been applied, (b) the Proper Reasonable Opportunity of being Heard has not been given & (c) Rejected only for the want of Note on the Activities of the Trust or Rebutting the same for its compliance and therefore the aforesaid Original Order passed in appeal bearing ITA No. of the Act are 1. Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption, Pune U/s 12AB rws 80G(5)(iii) dated 31/10/2022 23/1046535844(1)] is Bad in law as (a) it seems that the Judicial Mind has not been applied, (b) the Proper Reasonable Opportunity of being Heard has not been given & (c) Rejected only for the want of Note on the Activities of the Trust or Rebutting the same for its compliance and therefore the aforesaid Original Order passed none attended on On perusal of the record, we found that written submission filed by the assessee are already on record, we rejected the adjournment applicati assessee and proceeded to adjudicate the appeals ex assessee after hearing arguments of the ld. Department Representative. 5. As regards to rejection of registration u/s 12AA of the Act is concerned, the we find that the Ld. CIT “2. The application was carefully perused and considered along with its annexures. Thereafter, certain informaiton / clarification was called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, genuineness of activities of the assessee viz, date of commencement of activity, date of expiry of provisional registration, details of any other Law applicable for achievement of objectives and the proof of compliance of said Law, proof of identity of main trustees / directors, year list of donations received, copies of annual accounts for the last 3 years or since inception whichever is later, note on activities carried out along with supporting credible evidence etc. vide notice The assessee was requested to submit his compliance by 09/09/2022. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the matter will be decided based on material availab was duly served on the assessee through e 3. It is seen that the note on activities submitted by the assessee is general viz. conducting workshop for wellness student, couples, training workshop seminar kids, studen parents, help students/adults come out of depression and stress helps them use of social media to spread awareness etc. without giving any specific details of what actual activities were carried out, who were the beneficiaries, where the activity was c his claim. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of activities being carried out, it is not possible to ascertain as Braingyan ITA No. rejected the adjournment application filed by the Ld Counsel of the assessee and proceeded to adjudicate the appeals ex assessee after hearing arguments of the ld. Department As regards to rejection of registration u/s 12AA of the Act is find that the Ld. CIT observed as under: 2. The application was carefully perused and considered along with its annexures. Thereafter, certain informaiton / clarification was called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee viz, date of commencement of activity, date of expiry of provisional registration, details of any other Law applicable for achievement of objectives and the proof of compliance of said f of identity of main trustees / directors, year list of donations received, copies of annual accounts for the last 3 years or since inception whichever is later, note on activities carried out along with supporting credible evidence etc. vide notice issued through ITBA portal on 25/08/2022. The assessee was requested to submit his compliance by 09/09/2022. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the matter will be decided based on material available on record. The notice was duly served on the assessee through e-portal / email. 3. It is seen that the note on activities submitted by the assessee is general viz. conducting workshop for wellness student, couples, training workshop seminar kids, studen parents, help students/adults come out of depression and stress helps them use of social media to spread awareness etc. without giving any specific details of what actual activities were carried out, who were the beneficiaries, where the activity was carried out and without any supporting proof of his claim. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of activities being carried out, it is not possible to ascertain as Braingyan Foundation 3 ITA No. 3092 & 3093/M/2022 AY 2022-23 the Ld Counsel of the assessee and proceeded to adjudicate the appeals ex-partee qua the assessee after hearing arguments of the ld. Department As regards to rejection of registration u/s 12AA of the Act is observed as under: 2. The application was carefully perused and considered along with its annexures. Thereafter, certain informaiton / clarification was called for under the provisions of section 1961 to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee viz, date of commencement of activity, date of expiry of provisional registration, details of any other Law applicable for achievement of objectives and the proof of compliance of said f of identity of main trustees / directors, year-wise list of donations received, copies of annual accounts for the last 3 years or since inception whichever is later, note on activities carried out along with supporting credible evidence issued through ITBA portal on 25/08/2022. The assessee was requested to submit his compliance by 09/09/2022. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the matter will le on record. The notice portal / email. 3. It is seen that the note on activities submitted by the assessee is general viz. conducting workshop for wellness student, couples, training workshop seminar kids, students, parents, help students/adults come out of depression and stress helps them use of social media to spread awareness etc. without giving any specific details of what actual activities were carried out, who were the beneficiaries, where the arried out and without any supporting proof of his claim. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of activities being carried out, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the activities are in line with the objects of the trust / institution. Hence, the undersigned is unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about genuineness of activities of the assessee.” 6. As regards to the appeal against rejection of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, we find that the Ld. CIT has called for certain information for verification of genuineness of the activity of the assessee vide notice issued through Income dated 25/08/2022 and due 09/09/2022 whereas the assessee 13/09/2022, which is According to the Ld. CIT(A) note on activity submitted by the assessee was very general without giving any specific details as were the beneficiaries and where the activities were carried out. We find that Ld. CIT has a straightway passed the order rejecting the registration of the assessee heard. In our opinion, thisaction desired to go through the specific activit should have called for further information from the assessee. The action of the Ld. CIT amounts to not providing adequate opportunity of being he aside the finding of the Ld. CIT and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised in the appeal accordingly allowed for Braingyan ITA No. to whether the activities are in line with the objects of the trust ion. Hence, the undersigned is unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about genuineness of activities of the As regards to the appeal against rejection of registration u/s e find that the Ld. CIT has called for certain nformation for verification of genuineness of the activity of the tice issued through Income-tax 25/08/2022 and due-date for submission of the same was 09/09/2022 whereas the assessee complied the same on ich is evident from the written submission filed. According to the Ld. CIT(A) note on activity submitted by the assessee was very general without giving any specific details as the beneficiaries and where the activities were carried out. We hat Ld. CIT has a straightway passed the order rejecting the registration of the assessee, without giving oppournity of being opinion, thisaction of the Ld. CIT is not justified go through the specific activities of the ass for further information from the assessee. The action of the Ld. CIT amounts to not providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being eard to the assessee. The grounds raised in the appeal accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Braingyan Foundation 4 ITA No. 3092 & 3093/M/2022 AY 2022-23 to whether the activities are in line with the objects of the trust ion. Hence, the undersigned is unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about genuineness of activities of the As regards to the appeal against rejection of registration u/s e find that the Ld. CIT has called for certain nformation for verification of genuineness of the activity of the tax website portal date for submission of the same was complied the same on evident from the written submission filed. According to the Ld. CIT(A) note on activity submitted by the assessee was very general without giving any specific details as who the beneficiaries and where the activities were carried out. We hat Ld. CIT has a straightway passed the order rejecting the , without giving oppournity of being of the Ld. CIT is not justified. If, he ies of the assessee, he for further information from the assessee. The action of the Ld. CIT amounts to not providing adequate to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being eard to the assessee. The grounds raised in the appeal are 7. As regard to appeal against rejection of r assessee u/s 80G of the Act application for the reason actual activities carried out certificate u/s 12AA or 10(23C) of the Act. On perusal of the written submission filed by the assessee, we find that the general information regarding the genuineness of the activity in respect of the notice dated 30/08/2022 issued by the Ld. CIT on Income-tax Portal. The learned CIT was not satisfied with the said information and according to him the assessee should have filed specific details of the activities carried out by it including name of the beneficiaries and the places where activity was carried out. But the Ld. CIT without issuing any further registration of the assessee under section 80G on this ground. The second reason for rejection CIT is non-registration the assessee against rejection of registration has already been set aside and restored back to the Ld CIT. the Ld. CITof rejection of application u violation of the principle of natural of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the Ld. CIT for opportunity of hearing assessee is according allowed for statistical purposes. Braingyan ITA No. As regard to appeal against rejection of registration of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT rejected the for the reasons, firstly ,for non-filing specific details of actual activities carried out and secondly, non-filing of Registration or 10(23C) of the Act. On perusal of the written submission filed by the assessee, we find that the assessee has filed general information regarding the genuineness of the activity in f the notice dated 30/08/2022 issued by the Ld. CIT on tax Portal. The learned CIT was not satisfied with the said information and according to him the assessee should have filed specific details of the activities carried out by it including name of the beneficiaries and the places where activity was carried out. But the Ld. CIT without issuing any further notice, registration of the assessee under section 80G on this ground. The reason for rejection of application u/s 80G registration under section 12AA of the Act the assessee against rejection of registration has already been set aside and restored back to the Ld CIT. In our opinion, the action of of rejection of application u/s 80G of the of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the Ld. CIT for deciding afresh after providing adequate nity of hearing to the assessee. The ground of appeal of the assessee is according allowed for statistical purposes. Braingyan Foundation 5 ITA No. 3092 & 3093/M/2022 AY 2022-23 egistration of the is concerned, the Ld. CIT rejected the filing specific details of filing of Registration or 10(23C) of the Act. On perusal of the written assessee has filed general information regarding the genuineness of the activity in f the notice dated 30/08/2022 issued by the Ld. CIT on tax Portal. The learned CIT was not satisfied with the said information and according to him the assessee should have filed specific details of the activities carried out by it including name of the beneficiaries and the places where activity was carried out. But notice, rejected the registration of the assessee under section 80G on this ground. The of application u/s 80G by the learned ct. The appeal of the assessee against rejection of registration has already been set In our opinion, the action of /s 80G of the Act, is in Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue h after providing adequate . The ground of appeal of the assessee is according allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court/under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 13/02/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Braingyan ITA No. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court/under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 13/02/2023. Sd/ RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Braingyan Foundation 6 ITA No. 3092 & 3093/M/2022 AY 2022-23 filed by the assessee are Order pronounced in the open Court/under Rule 34(4) of Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai