Ahir Suvarnakar Samaj Sanstha Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
A 150-Year-Old Trust Cannot Produce Ancient Papers Overnight: Approval u/s 80G(5) Restored for Fresh Hearing
Background
Ahir Suvarnakar Samaj Sanstha was stated to be a 150-year-old charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It had obtained registration u/s 12A as far back as 23.11.1974 & had been regularly filing its income-tax returns.
The Trust filed an application on 30.04.2025 seeking regular approval u/s 80G(5). For verifying the genuineness of its activities & examining whether the statutory conditions were satisfied, the CIT (Exemption), Pune issued a notice through the ITBA portal on 10.07.2025. The notice required the Trust to upload specified information & supporting documents.
According to the CIT (Exemption), the Trust failed to furnish the required information. In the absence of proper compliance, its application was rejected by an ex parte order dated 11.12.2025.
The Trust challenged the rejection before the Pune Tribunal./s
Trust Claims That Replies Were Overlooked
In its statement of facts & grounds of appeal, the Trust disputed the conclusion that it had not complied with the proceedings.
It claimed that replies had been furnished on 25.06.2025 & 14.10.2025. It had also sought an adjournment on 12.09.2025 because many of the documents called for by the CIT (Exemption) were extremely old & required time to be traced, compiled & produced.
The Trust contended that it possessed a valid registration u/s 12AB, had been recognised under the tax law for several decades & had consistently filed returns. According to it, the CIT (Exemption) had incorrectly interpreted the conditions contained in s.80G(5) & had failed to properly appreciate the replies already placed on record.
It further asserted that the rejection violated the principles of natural justice. No material had been brought on record to establish that its activities were not genuine. The application was effectively rejected for perceived procedural non-compliance without a substantive examination of its long-standing charitable activities.
No Representation Before the ITAT
When the appeal came up for hearing on 28.07.2026, no one appeared for the Trust. There had been no appearance even on the previous hearing date of 16.06.2026.
The Tribunal therefore proceeded to dispose of the appeal with the assistance of the Departmental Representative & on the basis of the available record.
The assessee’s absence before the Tribunal was certainly not helpful to its case. Nevertheless, the ITAT did not treat non-appearance as sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal mechanically. It independently examined the application, the statement of facts, the history of the Trust & the circumstances in which the CIT (Exemption) had passed the ex parte order.
Electronic Default Cannot Eclipse Charitable Substance
The Tribunal observed that the ultimate purpose of proceedings u/s 80G(5) is to evaluate the genuineness of the institution’s activities & determine whether it satisfies the statutory conditions for approval.
Compliance with electronic notices remains important. An applicant seeking approval must furnish the particulars called for by the authority & cannot expect its application to be allowed without producing supporting material.
At the same time, a procedural lapse during an electronic proceeding cannot be permitted to completely overshadow the substantive purpose of the enquiry. Approval should be granted or refused after examining the applicant’s objects, activities, accounts & compliance with the conditions stipulated in the Act.
In the present case, the CIT (Exemption) had rejected the application ex parte. The Trust claimed to have furnished certain replies & explained that the documents sought were old, which led it to request additional time. These assertions had not received a proper examination on merits.
The Tribunal also took note of the institution’s claim that it had existed for around 150 years, held registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, possessed income-tax registration since 1974 & had regularly filed its returns.
These circumstances did not automatically establish entitlement to s.80G approval. However, they were sufficient to justify one further opportunity to establish eligibility through proper evidence.
Matter Restored to CIT (Exemption)
In the larger interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the ex parte rejection & remitted the issue of approval u/s 80G(5) to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The CIT (Exemption) was directed to provide the Trust with a reasonable opportunity of hearing & consider the documents or evidence furnished by it. The application must thereafter be decided afresh on merits in accordance with law.
The Tribunal simultaneously directed the Trust to remain vigilant, satisfactorily comply with all notices & avoid seeking adjournments unless supported by reasonable cause.
The appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not grant approval itself; it merely restored the application for proper consideration.
Author’s Comments
The ruling recognises the practical difficulty faced by old institutions when asked to produce records accumulated over several decades. A 150-year history is valuable evidence of continuity, but it can also mean that foundational documents are not available at the click of a portal button.
However, antiquity alone is not a passport to approval. The Trust must still prove that its objects & activities are charitable, its funds are properly applied, its registration remains valid & all conditions u/s 80G(5) are satisfied.
The case also illustrates a recurring problem in faceless proceedings. Replies may be uploaded, adjournments may be requested & yet the final order may record “no compliance” if submissions are not correctly tagged, acknowledged or considered. Applicants should preserve portal acknowledgments, submission receipts & screenshots demonstrating timely compliance.
The relief granted is a final opportunity, not a finding of entitlement. Considering that the Trust remained absent even before the ITAT, the warning to remain vigilant is significant. Old records may explain delayed compliance once; they cannot become a permanent shelter from compliance.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT, PUNE BENCH
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 11.12.2025 framed by CIT (Exemption), Pune rejecting application for grant of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. When the appeal called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even on the previous hearing fixed on 16.06.2026 there is no appearance from the side of assessee. We therefore proceed to dispose of this appeal with the assistance of ld. DR and material available on record.
3. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee has filed the application for grant of regular approval under 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Act on 30.04.2025. In order to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee, ld. CIT(Exemption) issued notice through ITBA portal on 10.07.2025 requiring the assessee to upload certain information. There was no compliance from the side of assessee resulting into rejection of the application for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act. Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(Exemption).
4. From perusal of the statement of facts, we note that the assessee is a 150 year old trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It has obtained registration u/s.12A of the Act on 23.11.1974 and has been filing the income tax returns regularly. Assessee has furnished replies on 25.06.2025 and 14.10.2025 and sought adjournment on 12.09.2025 as the papers asked by ld.CIT(Exemption) are very old. We note that the assessee by way of grounds of appeal is contending that it possesses the valid registration u/s.12AB of the Act and ld.CIT(Exemption) has wrongly interpreted section 80G(5)(i) of the Act; that the ld.CIT (Exemption) has not properly appreciated the replies filed by it violating the principles of natural justice. Further, ld.CIT(Exemption) has not brought any material on record to establish that the activities of the assessee trust are not genuine.
5. Non-compliance during electronic proceedings cannot overshadow the substantive objective of evaluating charitable activities of the trust. However, considering the fact that ld.CIT(Exemption) has passed the exparte order rejecting the application for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act, we in the larger interest of justice deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. We therefore remit back the issue of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act to the file of ld.CIT (Exemption) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT (Exemption) in the set aside proceeding shall provide reasonable opportunity to the asseseee and consider the documents/evidences to be filed by the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT (Exemption) and should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 02nd day of September, 2026.
