AI Insights
The case involves Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust appealing against the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal, which rejected their applications for final approval under section 80G and final registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not provided sufficient opportunity for the assessee to comply with the document requests, leading to the rejection of their applications. The tribunal noted that the assessee had subsequently provided the required documents and was willing to comply with any further requirements. The tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination of the applications with the new evidence provided.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708829 (ITAT-INDORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
18-07-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Assessment Year
2024-2025
Judgement Text
"Page 1 of 7 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 822 & 823/Ind/2024 Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust, Gram- Mirjapur, Tejaji Nagar, Vhiuraha, Mirjapur, Indore बनाम/ Vs. CIT Exemption Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AACTJ6279J Assessee by Shri Pranay Goyal, AR Revenue by Shri Anoop Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned two (2) appeals, first being ITA No. 822/Ind/2024 relating to approval u/s 80G and second being ITA No. 823/Ind/2024 relating to registration u/s 12AB, are filed by assessee against two (2) separate orders both dated 24.09.2024 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [“CIT(E)”] by which the assessee’s applications for grant of final approval u/s 80G & final registration u/s 12AB of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] have been rejected and the provisional approval u/s 80G & Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust ITA No. 822 & 823/Ind/2024 Page 2 of 7 provisional registration u/s 12AB granted earlier have also been cancelled. The assessee has raised the grounds as mentioned in Appeal Memos (Form No. 36). 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 w.e.f. 21.08.2018, copy of registration certificate is filed at Page 47 of Paper-Book. The assessee was also holding provisional registration u/s 12AB and provisional approval u/s 80G granted by Income- tax Department vide two separate orders dated 22.01.2022, copies of orders issued by Income-tax Department are filed at Pages 13-17 of Paper-Book. Thereafter, the assessee filed two separate applications to CIT(E) for grant of final registration u/s 12AB and final approval u/s 80G but those applications have been rejected vide two separate orders both dated 24.09.2024 passed by CIT(E). Aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals relate to the same assessee and the reason advanced by Ld. CIT(E) in rejecting assessee’s twin applications is identical, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. We would first take up appeal relating to registration u/s 12AB and thereafter appeal relating to approval u/s 80G. Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust ITA No. 822 & 823/Ind/2024 Page 3 of 7 ITA No. 823/Ind/2024 – relating to registration u/s 12AB: 4. Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the impugned order and demonstrated that the CIT(E) issued notice dated 17.09.2024 raising four (4) queries, the notice so issued is re-produced by CIT(E) in Para 2 of impugned order. However, the assessee could not file the details/documents required by CIT(E) on the appointed date and hence the CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has now filed all required details/documents at Pages 103 to 180 of Paper-Book. Ld. AR thereafter narrated that the CIT(E) cannot reject assessee’s application for the technical reason of non-filing of details/documents but, however, after some deliberations agreed that the present case may be restored at the level of CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication after examining the evidences now filed by assessee. He submitted that the assessee is ready to file any other detail/information/document also as the CIT(E) may require. 5. Ld. DR for revenue submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by CIT(E). He submitted that the CIT(E) has given opportunity to assessee but it is the assessee who did not avail that opportunity, therefore in the situation the CIT(E) could not get necessary satisfaction for granting registration. Hence, the CIT(E) has rightly rejected assessee’s application. Ld. DR further contended that the evidences now filed by assessee are new and the assessee has not filed any application under Rule 29 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of such evidences, therefore Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust ITA No. 822 & 823/Ind/2024 Page 4 of 7 the assessee’s evidences must be rejected. He finally contended that the impugned order passed by CIT(E) must be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both sides. On perusal of impugned order, we find that the CIT(E) issued notice dated 09.08.2024 and the assessee filed a reply dated 20.08.2024. Thus, the assessee does not have non-compliant attitude. It is only on perusal of assessee’s reply that the CIT(E) issued follow up notice dated 17.09.2024 to assessee giving a short time upto 23.09.2024 for filing some more details/information/ documents which the assessee could not reply. Thereafter, the CIT(E) passed impugned order on 24.09.2024 rejecting assessee’s application. Thus, the assessee’s application had been rejected for want of details/documents. The assessee has now filed all those evidences and willing to represent this case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we feel it appropriate to give one more opportunity to assessee to represent its case before CIT(E). 7. So far as the technical point raised by Ld. DR for revenue that there is no application filed by assessee in terms of Rules 29 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is concerned, we firstly refer the said Rule 29 reading as under: \"29. Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal - The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust ITA No. 822 & 823/Ind/2024 Page 5 of 7 assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.” 7.1 Thus, the basic ingredient for exercising powers under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence is that Tribunal should come to the conclusion that a particular document would be necessary for consideration to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause. The document can be brought to the notice of Tribunal by either party. Needless to mention that the Tribunal is final fact finding body and, therefore, the powers have been conferred on it u/s 131 and Rule 29 to enable it to record a factual finding after considering the entire evidence. Needless further to mention that the ITAT has been given wide powers for dispensation of justice. 7.2 During hearing, we posed a specific query to the Ld. DR for revenue as to whether it is necessary in Rule 29 to make a format written application? The Ld. DR could not show any such requirement. At this stage, we may make a useful reference to Para No. 10 of the decision of Third Member in Mascon Global Ltd. Vs. ACIT 37 SOT 202 (Chennai) (TM): “10. ….. The other objection of the Ld. Judicial Member is that there is no formal application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of the additional evidence. On going through the Rule, I do not find any requirement therein that there should be a formal written application before the Tribunal for admission of the additional evidence. These are rules of procedure and, in a fit case, and depending on the circumstances, it would be open to the Tribunal to Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust ITA No. 822 & 823/Ind/2024 Page 6 of 7 admit additional evidence when it is produced in Court and an oral application is made. I do not think that there is any hard and fast rule in this behalf and it should be left to the discretion of the Bench. I am unable to say that the Ld. Accountant Member exercised such discretion improperly. Rule 29 permits the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence for any substantial cause. Apparently, the Ld. Accountant Member has admitted the additional evidences on this ground with which I am unable to disagree. The intention behind the Rule is that substantial justice should be done and the interest of justice should be the overriding consideration. Having this in mind, I hold that there is no error in the Ld. Accountant Member admitting the additional evidence and sending it to the CIT for examination and decision.” 7.3 Therefore, in view of above discussion, the objection raised by Ld. DR against admission of additional evidences filed by assessee is rejected. 8. In the final result, we agree to remand this matter to the file of CIT(E) and we do so. We direct the CIT(E) to give necessary opportunities to the assessee to make representation including filing of additional evidences placed before us in the Paper-Book and also any other evidence as the assessee may choose to file during the course of proceeding before CIT(E). The CIT(E) shall consider assessee’s entire submission judiciously and pass order afresh in accordance with law. Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust ITA No. 822 & 823/Ind/2024 Page 7 of 7 ITA No. 822/Ind/2024 – relating to approval u/s 80G: 9. The facts of this appeal are identical to the facts of preceding appeal. Hence, we remand this case also to the file of CIT(E) in the very same terms for adjudication afresh. 10. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 18/07/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 18/07/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "
Mehul