Shri Maheshwari Mahila Mandal Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Pune)
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal heard two appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune denying registration under Section 12AB(1)(ac)(vi) and approval under Section 80G(5)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee was a trust formed with the objective of spreading and promoting educational facilities among native, tribal, backward class and minority communities in rural and urban areas for both girls and boys. The trust had filed an application in Form No.10AB on 15.05.2023 seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Act.
During the processing of the application, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) issued a notice dated 05.08.2023 through the ITBA portal calling upon the assessee to furnish certain information and clarifications. However, the assessee did not comply with the notice. In the absence of any response or compliance from the trust, the Commissioner (Exemption) denied registration under Section 12AB and also cancelled the provisional registration earlier granted to the assessee.
Aggrieved by the denial of registration, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, the authorised representative submitted that there had been changes in the Board of Directors and that the accountant who was handling the pending proceedings and compliances had resigned. As a result, the trustees were unaware of the pending proceedings and the notices issued by the Commissioner (Exemption). Because of this lack of knowledge, the assessee could not submit the relevant documentary evidence or comply with the notices issued through the portal.
The authorised representative therefore requested that another opportunity be granted to the assessee to present its case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and examined the record. It observed that the notice dated 05.08.2023 had indeed been issued asking the assessee to furnish details, but the assessee failed to respond. The Tribunal further noted the explanation offered by the assessee that the Board of Directors had changed and the accountant had resigned, resulting in the trustees remaining unaware of the notices and compliances required.
The Tribunal also took note of the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the circumstances under which compliance could not be made. The Tribunal was satisfied that there existed sufficient and reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the notices issued by the Commissioner (Exemption).
Considering the factual circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal held that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to properly represent its case before the Commissioner (Exemption). Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the registration claim, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the file of the Commissioner (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal also recorded the undertaking given by the authorised representative that the assessee would fully cooperate and render assistance during the fresh proceedings before the Commissioner (Exemption).
Since the order denying registration under Section 12AB and cancelling provisional registration was restored for fresh adjudication, the connected appeal concerning denial of approval under Section 80G was also remanded back for reconsideration.
Accordingly, both appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Assessee Represented by : Shri Sachin P. Kumar
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
