Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 102659 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-04-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 187 & 188/Ahd/2025 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : NA) Ladi Luhana Sindhi Panchayat Sidhpur A-15, Ghanshyam Society, Rajpur, Sidhpur, Gujarat - 384151 बनाम/ Vs. CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACTL0432D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Vivek Chavda, AR. Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 O R D E R PER SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: Both the appeals relate to the same assessee and are against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Ahmedabad (in short ‘the CIT(E)’) rejecting assessee’s applications seeking registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and u/s. 80G of the Act, dated 13.11.2024 & 15.11.2024; respectively. ITA Nos. 187 & 188/Ahd/2025 [Ladi Luhana Sindhi Panchayat Sidhpur vs. CIT(E)] - 2 – 2. The solitary plea of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that both the matters be restored back to the Ld. CIT(E) since the denial of approval both u/s. 12A & 80G of the Act was without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was pointed out before us that only two notices were issued to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(E) while examining the application of the assessee seeking registration u/s.12A of the Act, which he pointed out find mention in the order of the Ld. CIT(E) also. He contended that the trustees of the assessee society being senior citizens with limited familiarity with digital communications, were unable to regularly access and monitor the email account where notices were sent and, therefore, the said two notices went unresponded. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that on account of the same, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application seeking registration u/s.12A of the Act stating that in the absence of necessary documents submitted by the assessee, the genuineness of the objects and activities of the assessee trust could not be verified. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that de hors the fact that adequate opportunity of hearing was not given by the Ld. CIT(E),his finding of necessary documents not being submitted by the assessee for verification of the genuineness of its objects and activities was incorrect, since, the documents requested for by the Ld. CIT(E) in his two notices issued were already attached with the original form in which application was made to the Ld. CIT(E) for registration u/s.12A of the Act i.e. Form No.10AB. This, he contended was evident from the e-filing acknowledgement dated 29.06.2024, which confirms the submission of trust deed, audit reports and other ITA Nos. 187 & 188/Ahd/2025 [Ladi Luhana Sindhi Panchayat Sidhpur vs. CIT(E)] - 3 – supporting documentation. He, therefore, contended that the Ld. CIT(E) had, erred in rejecting the assessee’s application for lack of necessary documentation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee’s applications seeking the approval u/s.80G of the Act was rejected as a consequence of rejection of grant of registration u/s.12A of the Act, which was necessary condition for seeking approval u/s.80G of the Act. 3. Ld. DR fairly agreed that the assessee had been issued only two notices during the hearing before the Ld. CIT(E) on its application seeking registration u/s.12A of the Act. 4. Considering the admitted facts as noted above by us that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing while rejecting its application u/s.12A of the Act and noting the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us that the trustees were senior citizens and not familiar with the latest technologies of notice being served on email ID and being unable to access them in time, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the application of the assessee needs to be re-considered after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee alongwith the application of the assessee seeking approval u/s.80G of the Act. 5. In the light of the above, both the appeals are restored back to the Ld. CIT(E) for re-considering afresh the applications of the assessee seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act and approval ITA Nos. 187 & 188/Ahd/2025 [Ladi Luhana Sindhi Panchayat Sidhpur vs. CIT(E)] - 4 – u/s 80G of the Act, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 25/04/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/04/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंͬधत आयकर आयुÈत / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुÈत(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "
AI Insights
The case involves the Ladi Luhana Sindhi Panchayat Sidhpur, which appealed against the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, rejecting their applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(E), leading to the rejection of their applications. The tribunal noted that the trustees, being senior citizens, had limited familiarity with digital communications, which contributed to their inability to respond to the notices. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea and decided to remand the case for a fresh consideration.
