BRAHMACHAITANYA GONDAVLEKAR MAHARAJ ARADHANA KENDRA, THANE V. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 3100/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj Aradhana Kendra, an organization seeking registration under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, which was initially denied by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune. The primary contention was that the denial was made without proper judicial consideration and without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its activities and compliance details. The ITAT noted procedural lapses in the handling of the assessee's application and decided to remand the case back to the CIT for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123182 (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
• Section: 80G

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. 3100/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj Aradhana Kendra, 3, Shreenath Niwas, Patharli Road, Gograswadi, Dombivli-421201. Vs. CIT(Exemptions), Room No. 322, 3 rd floor, Income Tax Office, PMT Building, Shankar Seth Road, Pune, Maharashtra-411037. PAN No. AAATB 4518 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 This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Pune (in short ‘the Ld. CIT’) in relation to refusal of the Registration u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The ground raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: 1. Order passed by the Learne Tax, Exemption, Mumbai U/s 12AB ws 80G(5)(il) of the act dated 30/09/2022 (DIN:ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022 23/1046142200(1)] is Bad in law as (a) it seems that the Judicial Mind has not been applied, (b) the Proper Reasonable Opportunity given & (c) Rejected only for the want of Note on the Activities of the Trust or Rebutting the same for its compliance and ignoring the fact that the registration under section 12AB has been granted and therefore the aforesaid 2. At the outset, we find from the record that the Registry has pointed out delay of 9 days in filing the appeal. However, on perusal of the record, we find that order by the Ld. CIT has passed on 30.09.2022 and therefore appeal was due for filing before the ITAT on or before 29.11.2022. Whereas this appeal has been filed by the assessee on 28.11.2022 before the Income Bench Pune. The appeal then has been transferred to Mumbai Benches on 08.12.2022 and the Registry at Mumbai has accordingly pointed out delay of 9 days in filing this appeal. In our opinion, there is no delay in filing the appeal by the assessee appeal has been received by the Tribunal within the prescribed period. The defect raised by the Registry is accordingly treated as removed and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Mumbai U/s 12AB ws 80G(5)(il) of the act dated 30/09/2022 (DIN:ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022 23/1046142200(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 ignoring the fact that the registration under section 12AB has been granted and therefore the aforesaid Original Order passed may please be restored. At the outset, we find from the record that the Registry has pointed out delay of 9 days in filing the appeal. However, on perusal of the record, we find that order by the Ld. CIT has passed on and therefore appeal was due for filing before the ITAT on or before 29.11.2022. Whereas this appeal has been filed by the assessee on 28.11.2022 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, he appeal then has been transferred to Mumbai n 08.12.2022 and the Registry at Mumbai has accordingly pointed out delay of 9 days in filing this appeal. In our delay in filing the appeal by the assessee appeal has been received by the Tribunal within the prescribed The defect raised by the Registry is accordingly treated as removed and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj Aradhana Kendra 2 ITA No. 3100/M/2022 AY 2022-23 d Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Mumbai U/s 12AB ws 80G(5)(il) of the act dated 30/09/2022 (DIN:ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022- 23/1046142200(1)] is Bad in law as (a) it seems that the Judicial Mind has not been applied, (b) the Proper 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 ignoring the fact that the registration under section 12AB has been granted and therefore the Original Order passed may please be restored. At the outset, we find from the record that the Registry has pointed out delay of 9 days in filing the appeal. However, on perusal of the record, we find that order by the Ld. CIT has passed on and therefore appeal was due for filing before the ITAT on or before 29.11.2022. Whereas this appeal has been filed by the tax Appellate Tribunal, he appeal then has been transferred to Mumbai n 08.12.2022 and the Registry at Mumbai has accordingly pointed out delay of 9 days in filing this appeal. In our delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, as the appeal has been received by the Tribunal within the prescribed The defect raised by the Registry is accordingly treated as removed and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. the written submission of the assessee already on record, the adjournment application of the assessee was rejected and appeal was heard ex-partee qua the assessee after hearing arguments of Ld Departmental Representative. 4. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT noticed that the prescribed application have been accompanied by a note of the activities of the assessee. However, said note wasneither even uploaded on Income and therefore, in absence of a details and proof of the activities application of the assessee seeking registration/approval u/s 80G of the Act. On perusal of the written submission filed and available on record, we find that respect of donations trustees etc called for from the assessee. substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee purposes. Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. the written submission of the assessee already on record, the application of the assessee was rejected and appeal partee qua the assessee after hearing arguments of Ld Departmental Representative. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT, we find that the Ld. CIT noticed that the prescribed application in Form No. 10AB should have been accompanied by a note of the activities of the assessee. wasneither enclosed by the by the assessee on Income-tax Portal , despite opportunities provided and therefore, in absence of any tangible material in respect of details and proof of the activities, the Ld. CIT rejected the application of the assessee seeking registration/approval u/s 80G of the Act. On perusal of the written submission filed and available on record, we find that the assessee has filed detail respect of donations trustees etc, but specific details have not been called for from the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj Aradhana Kendra 3 ITA No. 3100/M/2022 AY 2022-23 Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In view of the written submission of the assessee already on record, the application of the assessee was rejected and appeal partee qua the assessee after hearing arguments of Ld we find that the Ld. CIT in Form No. 10AB should have been accompanied by a note of the activities of the assessee. enclosed by the by the assessee nor espite opportunities provided ny tangible material in respect of the Ld. CIT rejected the application of the assessee seeking registration/approval u/s 80G of the Act. On perusal of the written submission filed and available the assessee has filed detail/ report in , but specific details have not been Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, allowed for statistical 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is 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// Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for 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 the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj Aradhana Kendra 4 ITA No. 3100/M/2022 AY 2022-23 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for Order pronounced in the open Court/under Rule 34(4) of - OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Original dictation pad is enclosed at the end of file 1. Draft dictated on: 2. Draft placed before author: 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member: 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member: 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS: 6. Order pronounced on: 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk: 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk: 9. Date on which file goes to AR Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj Date Initials Original dictation pad is enclosed at the end of file Draft dictated on: 09.02.2023 Draft placed before author: 09.02.2023 Draft proposed & placed before the second member: Draft discussed/approved by Second Member: Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Order pronounced on: File sent to the Bench Clerk: Date on which file goes to the Date on which file goes to AR Brahmachaitanya Gondavlekar Maharaj Aradhana Kendra 5 ITA No. 3100/M/2022 AY 2022-23 Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS JM/AM JM/AM Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS