Hazrath Shaikh Minhajuddin Ansari Kallerawan Charitable Trust, Kalaburagi V. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Bengaluru

ITA 368/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Hazrath Shaikh Minhajuddin Ansari Kallerawan Charitable Trust, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru, denying approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The primary contention was that the CIT(E) had not provided a proper opportunity for the assessee to submit necessary documents to substantiate its activities for general public utility, which had been ongoing for 40 years. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(E) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124578 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHIJIT BAPU
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Condonation of delay
• Section: 12; 80G; 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.368/Bang/2023 Assessment year : N.A. Hazrath Shaikh Minhajuddin Ansari Kallerawan Charitable Trust, PO Box No.104, KST Campus, K C T Road, Qamarul Islam Colony, Kalaburagi – 585 104. PAN: AAATH 4631A Vs. The Commissioner of Income -Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru – 560 027. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Abhijit Bapu, Advocate Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 22.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order DIN & Notice No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/1049752418(1) of the CIT (Exemptions) Bangalore [CIT(E)] dated 14.2.2023. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit and submitted ITA No.368/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 3 that the responsible person, Secretary of the assessee was not available, therefore appeal could not be filed in time. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and other judgments for condonation of delay. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment cited supra, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The sole and substantive ground raised by the assessee is for approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(E) did not give proper opportunity to the assessee for filing requisite documents for substantiating its commencement of its activities for general public utility. He submitted that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application in a hasty manner and the submissions made by the assessee are not properly considered. He further submitted that the assessee has been carrying on the activities for the last 40 years and registration u/s. 12 has also been granted earlier and application was only for approval u/s. 80G of the Act. He therefore requested that the matter may be sent back to the ld. CIT(E) to substantiate its case before him. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed this request and submitted that before the CIT(E), the assessee could not substantiate its activities as required by the provisions of the Act and the assessee was unable to produce any credible evidence to the satisfaction of the ld. CIT(E). ITA No.368/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 3 4. After hearing both the sides, perusing the entire material on record and the orders of the lower authorities, as per the submissions of the ld. AR, the assessee is running its activities for the last 40 years, it has been granted registration u/s. 12A of the Act and the assessee has sought for approval u/s. 80G of the Act. In the interest of justice, we remit the matter to the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration in accordance with law and assessee is directed to file the requisite documents for substantiating its claim. The CIT(E) is further directed to grant three effective opportunities of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 27 th day of June, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 27 th June, 2023. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.