Case Law Details
Snehatheeram Charitable Trust Vs CIT (Kerala High Court)
The recent judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Snehatheeram Charitable Trust vs. CIT has significant implications for nonprofit organizations seeking tax benefits under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of their application for a certificate under Sections 80G and 12A of the IT Act, filed a writ petition challenging the order.
The crux of the petitioner’s argument revolved around the submission of relevant documents in response to the notice served by the department. Despite the petitioner’s claim of having submitted all necessary documents, the impugned order cited non-compliance, leading to rejection.
However, upon scrutiny, discrepancies emerged regarding the date of document submission and the hearing date mentioned in the order. The court identified these inconsistencies as crucial errors and consequently set aside the impugned order.
By remitting the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration, the court has upheld the principles of fairness and due process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order in Ext.P9 whereby, the petitioner’s application in Ext.P2 under Sections 80G and 12A of the Income Tax, 1961(‘the IT Act’ for short) has been rejected on the ground that despite the service of notice, the petitioner has failed to submit the relevant documents for issuing the certificate under Section 80G of the IT Act has filed the present writ petition with following prayers:-
“It is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to Exhibit P2 application for permanent registration/approval under section 80G and Exhibit P9 order of rejection and;
A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing Exhibit P9 order of rejection.
B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to consider Exhibit P2 application forthwith.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the notice in Ext.P5 dated 16.11.2022, the petitioner had submitted all the relevant documents vide Ext.P3 letter dated 01.11.2022. However, the impugned order suggests that the petitioner did not submit any document in response to the notice dated 16.11.2022 in Ext.P5.
3. It appears that there is some mismatch. This stand of the department in the impugned order is that the petitioner did not submit the document on 22.11.2022 which is the date fixed for hearing. Considering this grounds, it appears that some mistake / omissions has crept into in the impugned order, and therefore, the same is set aside.
In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application in Ext.P2 afresh. The petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with all the relevant documents on 09.04.2024.
Author Bio
