SMT.L.B. JOSHI FOUNDATION,KALHER V. NAVEEN GUPTA, CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 2440/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Smt. L.B. Joshi Foundation, which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, denying the grant of registration under section 12AA and approval under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The foundation had initially failed to comply with notices requesting information to verify the genuineness of its activities. The Tribunal found that the foundation deserved another opportunity to present its case and thus remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for a thorough re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474147 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RONEN JOSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 12AA; 12A; 80G

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2440 and 2442/PUN/2024 Smt. L.B. Joshi Foundation, Kalher Bhiwandi, Dist Thane, Sandoz Baugh – 400 607 Maharashtra PAN : AAVTS9144G Vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are directed against the orders framed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune both dated 09.11.2024 denying grant of registration u/s.12AA and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. Tersely, the facts of the case pertaining to ITA No.2440/PUN/2024 are that the appellant filed application on Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act for grant of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act on 30.06.2024. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued notices through ITBA portal on 22.08.2024, 08.10.2024 calling upon the appellant trust to file certain information/clarification. There was no compliance by the appellant to such notices. In the Appellant by : Shri Ronen Joshi Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 04.03.2025 ITA Nos.2440 and 2442/PUN/2024 Smt. L.B. Joshi Foundation 2 circumstances, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the appellant, thereby cancelling the provisional registration granted to it. 3. Similar position prevailed in respect of application filed for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act which came to be rejected by the ld.CIT(Exemption) for non compliances to the notices issued. 4. Aggrieved appellant approached the Tribunal challenging the impugned orders denying grant of registration u/s.12AA of the Act as well as denial of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We observe that, the appellant applied for registration under clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act on 30.06.2024. Upon perusal of Form 10AB and accompanying documents, the ld. CIT(E) by issue of notices dated 22.08.2024 and 08.10.2024 called upon the appellant to substantiate its existence and genuineness of activities carried out and to furnish certain information / clarification with their respect etc., however these notices went futile owing to non-compliance by the appellant. In absence of requisite material to arrive at positive satisfaction, the ld. CIT(E) concluded that he is unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about genuineness of activities and thus rejected to grant recognition u/s. 12AA of the Act. Apparently in the present case, there has been a non-compliance on the part of appellant to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) which led to rejection to grant of 12AA recognition to the appellant foundation. We note that, for a similar non-compliance the appellant’s 80G ITA Nos.2440 and 2442/PUN/2024 Smt. L.B. Joshi Foundation 3 application was also rejected by the Revenue which was also challenged by the appellant before this Tribunal. 6. In so far as the merits of the case is concerned, it transpires from the records that, the appellant trust could not be represented before the ld. CIT(E) in securing the registration u/s. 12AA of the Act for the genuine and sufficient reasons. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellant before us that appellant could not submit the requisite documents before the ld.CIT(E) for the bonafide reasons which are beyond control of the appellant trust. He submitted that the appellant is in a position to submit the documents evidencing the charitable activities of the foundation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the appellant deserves one more opportunity of being heard, ergo we restore the file to the ld. CIT(E) with a direction to consider the application for registration denovo by according sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce necessary and requisite information, documents, undertaking and declaration etc. as deemed necessary under the provisions of the Act. Needless to state that, the appellant shall invariably comply with the direction of ld. CIT(E) in adjudicating the application, without seeking any unreasoned adjournment. It is also made clear that appellant should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2440 and 2442/PUN/2024 Smt. L.B. Joshi Foundation 4 ITA No.2442/PUN/2024 : 7. The instant appeal is against the order framed by ld.CIT(A) denying grant of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act. Since we have remanded the issue of grant of registration to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit the issue of grant of approval u/s.80G(5) as well to the file of ld.CIT(E), being consequential. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 04th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 04th March, 2025. Satish 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, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "