SHRI VAISHNAV PARIVAR BAHUUDDESHIY SEVABHAVI SANSTHA,JALNA V. CIT(E), PUNE

ITA 2611/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha, a trust, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, denying them registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The trust had initially filed an application for registration, which was provisionally granted. However, upon further scrutiny, discrepancies were noted, and the trust failed to respond to a subsequent notice, leading to the cancellation of their provisional registration. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the appellant's non-compliance, particularly the health issues of the Authorized Representative's mother, and decided to remand the case for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474142 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH PREMCHAND
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2611/PUN/2024 Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha, Shelud, At Shelud, Post Shelud, Bhok Ardan, Jalna – 431 132 Maharashtra PAN : ABGAS1253B Vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of appellant is directed against the order framed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune dated 02.12.2024 denying grant of registration u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Trust, filed application on Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act for grant of regular registration on 29.06.2024. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a notice through ITBA portal on 05.08.2024 calling upon the appellant to file certain information/clarification. The appellant filed the requisite details. However, the ld.CIT(E) issued another notice to the appellant on 21.11.2024 pointing out certain discrepancies (para 4 of the Appellant by : Shri Piyush Premchand Bafna Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.02.2025 ITA No.2611/PUN/2024 Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha 2 impugned order). There was no compliance from the side of appellant to such notice. In the circumstances, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the appellant, thereby cancelling the provisional registration granted to it. 3. Aggrieved appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal assailing the impugned order denying grant of registration u/s.12A of the Act. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that at the relevant point of time, the mother of Authorised Representative was admitted in hospital and therefore, he could not make the required submissions before the ld.CIT(E). Further, the time required for compliance to the second notice issued by ld.CIT(E) is very short and unreasonable. Therefore, the assessee may be granted another opportunity for making its submissions before ld.CIT(A) by remanding the matter. 5. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ample opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT(E) and the appellant could not avail them, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(E) be upheld. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the record placed before us. We find the appellant in response to the first notice issued by the ld. CIT(E) has filed the requisite details. However, when the ld. CIT(E) issued another notice asking the appellant to clarify regarding certain discrepancies found in the above submissions, the appellant failed to comply to the same. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the AR could not make compliance to the second notice owing to hospitalisation of his mother. Therefore, the appellant should be ITA No.2611/PUN/2024 Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha 3 given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details to the satisfaction of Ld. CIT(E). Considering the totality of the facts of the case, submissions made by ld. Counsel for the appellant and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with a direction to grant an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, before the ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld. CIT(E) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the appellant are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeals of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 13th February, 2025. Satish ITA No.2611/PUN/2024 Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha 4 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\f / The Appellant. 2. \r\u000eयथ\f / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय \rितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "