WE CAN,TUTICORIN V. CIT (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI

ITA 2809/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves 'We Can', a charitable trust based in Tuticorin, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. The Commissioner had rejected the trust's application for approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The trust argued that the rejection was based on an ex-parte decision and that they were unaware of the proceedings due to incorrect email notifications from the tax department. The Tribunal noted the procedural error and the incorrect email communication, leading to the decision to set aside the Commissioner's order and remand the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107021 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2025
• 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: NILAY BARAN SOM
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSHITA JOTHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल, लेखा सद\u0007 क े सम\u001d BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos. 2809/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000bरणवष\u000b/Assessment Years: - We Can 4/131, CGE Colony, 3rd Street, Thoothukudi – 628 003. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. [PAN: AAATW3395E] (अपीलाथ\u000e/Appellant) (\u000f\u0010यथ\u000e/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u000e क\u0012 ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. Joshita Jothi, CA \u000f\u0010यथ\u000e क\u0012 ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT सुनवाईक\u0012तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025 घोषणाक\u0012तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee trust against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai, (hereinafter in short \"the Ld.CIT(E)”) dated 14.11.2023 rejecting the application filed by the assessee on 04.05.2023 in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act”) seeking approval u/s. 80G of the Act 2. At the outset, it is of this appeal. The assessee has file delay along with an affidavit assessee trust supporting all the averments made in the a condonation of delay. 3. The contents of the application/affidavit shows that the assessee society is registered u/s. 12AB of the Act Society which was established in 2012 in the industrial city of Tuticorin and aims to combat the ri WE CAN is registered u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since it is a charitable trust with the objects of protection of environment. programs which involve cleaning waste and restoring local ecosystems through tree planting, removing waste from the surrounding areas, especially near water bodies and public spaces, while ensuring the soil and air quality are improved also involved in restoring the health of water bodies by removing silt and debris that accumulate at the bottom, maintaining the beauty and health of our shorelines and maintaining healthy palm tree cultivation a planting of trees which is crucial for the eco involved in philanthropic activities helping the underprivileged by providing education support for children, providing 'food and basic ITA No :: 2 :: At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 296 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condoning the affidavit sworn by Angeline Koilraj, President of the assessee trust supporting all the averments made in the a The contents of the application/affidavit shows that the assessee society is registered u/s. 12AB of the Act. ‘WE CAN’ Society which was established in 2012 in the industrial city of Tuticorin and aims to combat the rising challenges of pollution & carbon emissions. WE CAN is registered u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since it is a charitable trust with the objects of providing relief to the poor & protection of environment. WE CAN has several environmental programs which involve cleaning waste and restoring local ecosystems through tree planting, removing waste from the surrounding areas, especially near water bodies and public spaces, while ensuring the soil and air quality are improved for sustainable living. The organization is also involved in restoring the health of water bodies by removing silt and debris that accumulate at the bottom, maintaining the beauty and health of our shorelines and maintaining healthy palm tree cultivation a planting of trees which is crucial for the eco-system. WE CAN is also involved in philanthropic activities helping the underprivileged by providing education support for children, providing 'food and basic ITA Nos. 2809/Chny/2024 We Can noticed that there is a delay of 296 days in filing d an application for condoning the Angeline Koilraj, President of the assessee trust supporting all the averments made in the application for The contents of the application/affidavit shows that the assessee is a registered Society which was established in 2012 in the industrial city of Tuticorin; carbon emissions. WE CAN is registered u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since it is a providing relief to the poor & veral environmental programs which involve cleaning waste and restoring local ecosystems through tree planting, removing waste from the surrounding areas, especially near water bodies and public spaces, while ensuring the soil for sustainable living. The organization is also involved in restoring the health of water bodies by removing silt and debris that accumulate at the bottom, maintaining the beauty and health of our shorelines and maintaining healthy palm tree cultivation and system. WE CAN is also involved in philanthropic activities helping the underprivileged by providing education support for children, providing 'food and basic resources during natural disasters such as floo food packets to those in need Ld.CIT(E) on 14.11.2023. However, the assessee was not aware of the proceedings going on before the Ld.CIT(E), since it didn’t get any and was in the dark about explained that the notices they were sent to incorrect e the updated email i [e-mail] assessee has filed screenshot of the E-filing Portal reflecting the above email ids and a copy of an email received from the Income Tax Department [e-mail] the assessee was not aware of the impugned rejection order and came to know only about it on 01.11.2024 and within 3 days (i.e. on 04.11.2024) assessee had filed the appeal before this Tribunal. Therefore, prays for condoning the delay. 4. In this regard, we note that the notices of hearing w incorrect email id [e-mail] by assessee in the portal of department as noted (supra) assessee’s assertion that it never received any notices impugned order from the office of Ld.CIT(E) ITA No :: 3 :: resources during natural disasters such as floods and also distributing food packets to those in need and the impugned order was passed by the Ld.CIT(E) on 14.11.2023. However, the assessee was not aware of the going on before the Ld.CIT(E), since it didn’t get any ark about passing of the impugned order the notices couldn’t be served upon the assessee because, correct e-mail id, [e-mail] the updated email ids [e-mail] [e-mail]. To support the aforesaid averments the assessee has filed screenshot of the “My Profile page” of the Income Tax filing Portal reflecting the above email ids and a copy of an email received from the Income Tax Department after [e-mail]. Therefore, according to the assessee was not aware of the impugned rejection order and came to know only about it on 01.11.2024 and within 3 days (i.e. on 04.11.2024) assessee had filed the appeal before this Tribunal. Therefore, prays for his regard, we note that the notices of hearing w [e-mail] and not to the email id updated by assessee in the portal of department as noted (supra) assertion that it never received any notices from the office of Ld.CIT(E) has to be accepted ITA Nos. 2809/Chny/2024 We Can ds and also distributing and the impugned order was passed by the Ld.CIT(E) on 14.11.2023. However, the assessee was not aware of the going on before the Ld.CIT(E), since it didn’t get any notices passing of the impugned order. The Ld.AR couldn’t be served upon the assessee because, [e-mail]; and not to [e-mail] & support the aforesaid averments the of the Income Tax filing Portal reflecting the above email ids and a copy of an email updating the . Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, the assessee was not aware of the impugned rejection order and came to know only about it on 01.11.2024 and within 3 days (i.e. on 04.11.2024) assessee had filed the appeal before this Tribunal. Therefore, prays for his regard, we note that the notices of hearing were sent to and not to the email id updated by assessee in the portal of department as noted (supra). Therefore, as well as the has to be accepted, since we note that the notice have been issued to wrong email id also issued to assessee. expected to file the appeal within 60 days of the impugned after coming to know about the rejection order, it is noted assessee had filed within 3 days factual background, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to examine the appeal filed by the assessee on its own merits. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the impugned order is an ex and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E). Therefore, as noted supra, since the notices were issued on the wrong email id and not in the correct email id of the assessee society (as noted supra), there is a clear violation of natural justice and therefore the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) is set aside restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E). 6. Having said so, the the additional ground nos. 8 assessee trust while filing application onl of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, whereas it ought to have been under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act prayed that the inadvertent mistake made while filling up the application needs to be rectified. Since, we find that the assessee has not ITA No :: 4 :: te that the notice have been issued to wrong email id and no SMS was to assessee. In such circumstances, the assessee can’t to file the appeal within 60 days of the impugned after coming to know about the rejection order, it is noted assessee had filed within 3 days the appeal before the Tribunal. we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to examine the appeal filed by the assessee on its own merits. The Ld.AR submitted that the impugned order is an ex and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E). ore, as noted supra, since the notices were issued on the wrong email id and not in the correct email id of the assessee society (as noted supra), there is a clear violation of natural justice and therefore the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) is set aside and the application is restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E). Having said so, the Ld.AR of the assessee invited our attention to additional ground nos. 8 & 9, wherein it has been pointed out assessee trust while filing application online has wrongly clicked clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, whereas it ought to have been under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act prayed that the inadvertent mistake made while filling up the application . Since, we find that the assessee has not ITA Nos. 2809/Chny/2024 We Can and no SMS was assessee can’t be to file the appeal within 60 days of the impugned order; and after coming to know about the rejection order, it is noted that the the appeal before the Tribunal. In such we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to examine the appeal filed by the assessee on its own merits. The Ld.AR submitted that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E). ore, as noted supra, since the notices were issued on the wrong email id and not in the correct email id of the assessee society (as noted supra), there is a clear violation of natural justice and therefore the and the application is invited our attention to & 9, wherein it has been pointed out that the clicked clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, whereas it ought to have been under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act and prayed that the inadvertent mistake made while filling up the application . Since, we find that the assessee has not intentionally clicked clause (ii), but inadvertently had done so, the mistake committed by the assessee need to be redressed and we accordingly direct the Ld.CIT(E) to treat the application f assessee as if it has been filed 80G(5) of the Act and assessee is directed to be diligent and file the relevant documents as required under the statute/Rule 11AA(2) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 directed by the Ld.CIT(E) without fail and the Ld.CIT(E) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the the right email ids as noted supra. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL लेखासद\u0007य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे\u0003ई/Chennai, \u0005दनांक/Dated: 26th February JPV, Sr.PS आदेशक\r\u000eितिलिपअ\u0014ेिषत/Copy to 1. अपीलाथ\u0014/Appellant 2. \u0015\u0016थ\u0014/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u001b/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0015ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u000bफाईल/GF ITA No :: 5 :: clicked clause (ii), but inadvertently had done so, the mistake committed by the assessee need to be redressed and we accordingly direct the Ld.CIT(E) to treat the application f as if it has been filed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section and process the application in accordance to law; assessee is directed to be diligent and file the relevant documents as required under the statute/Rule 11AA(2) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 directed by the Ld.CIT(E) without fail and the Ld.CIT(E) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee and also issue notices on the right email ids as noted supra. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical Order pronounced on the 26th day of February, 2025, in Chennai. अ\u0019वाल) KUMAR AGGARWAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/ (एबी टी. (ABY T. VARKEY \tयाियकसद\u0007य/JUDICIAL MEMBER February, 2025. Copy to: , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. ITA Nos. 2809/Chny/2024 We Can clicked clause (ii), but inadvertently had done so, the mistake committed by the assessee need to be redressed and we accordingly direct the Ld.CIT(E) to treat the application filed by the under clause (iii) of first proviso to section process the application in accordance to law; the assessee is directed to be diligent and file the relevant documents as required under the statute/Rule 11AA(2) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and as directed by the Ld.CIT(E) without fail and the Ld.CIT(E) to pass order in issue notices on In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical , 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- . वक ) ABY T. VARKEY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. "