SARDAR AANTAJI MANKESHWAR GANDHE SMRUTI NYAS,PUNE V. CIT (E), PUNE

ITA 1459/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sardar Aantaji Mankeshwar Gandhe Smruti Nyas against the order of the CIT(E), Pune, which rejected the application for registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) had initially granted provisional registration but later cancelled it due to non-submission of explanations regarding discrepancies noted in the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to explain the discrepancies and thus restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee to submit the necessary details.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32619 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR KESHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1459/PUN./2024 [U/sec.12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961] Sardar Aantaji Mankeshwar Gandhe Smruti Nyas, A 9/A, Flat No.2, River View Residency, Nimbaj Nagar, Wadgaon BK Sinhagad Road, PUNE – 411 051. Maharashtra. PAN AAOTS0748P vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax – Exemption, Room No.322, 3rd Floor, Income Tax Office, PMT Bldg., Shankar Seth Road, PUNE – 411 037. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kishor B Phadke For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.05.2024 of the learned CIT(E), Pune, rejecting the application for registration u/sec.12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short \"the Act\"). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed an application u/sec.12A in Form-10AB on 27.12.2023. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the Trust/Institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued 2 ITA.No.1459/PUN./2024 through ITBA portal on 12.03.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information . The assessee in response to the same filed certain details. However, the learned CIT(E) on verification of the details noticed certain discrepancies and therefore, issued another notice to the assessee on 01.05.2024. Since the assessee did not furnish any explanation to the discrepancies intimated to it, the learned CIT(E) presumed that the assessee has nothing to say in the matter. He, therefore, rejected the application filed by the assessee and also cancelled the provisional registration granted on 27.05.2021 u/sec.12AB of the Act read with sec.12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee at the outset submitted that adequate opportunity has not been granted by the learned CIT(E). He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate it’s case by filing requisite details before the CIT(E). 4. The Learned DR on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Learned counsel for the assessee and submitted that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(E), the assessee did not furnish any details. 3 ITA.No.1459/PUN./2024 Therefore, the order of the learned CIT(E) be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 5. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee in compliance to notice dated 12.03.2024, the learned CIT(E) found certain discrepancies and therefore, he issued another notice to the assessee on 01.05.2024 pointing-out the discrepancies. We find the assessee did not furnish any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it for which the learned CIT(E) presumed that the assessee has nothing to say in the matter. He therefore, rejected the application for grant of registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier. It is the submission of the Learned counsel for the assessee that only one opportunity was given by the CIT(E) and given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate it’s case by filing requisite details as called for by the CIT(E). Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate it’s case by filing all the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the required details before the CIT(E) on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment, failing which, the 4 ITA.No.1459/PUN./2024 CIT(E) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [MS. ASTHA CHANDRA] [RAMA KANTA PANDA] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Pune, Dated 29th November, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(E), Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune. "