Aanand Achal Guru Foundation Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Pune)
Pune ITAT Sets Aside Rejection of 12AB Registration and 80G Approval, Holding Opportunity of Hearing Must Be Real and Effective
The Pune ITAT held that the rejection of applications for regular registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G solely on account of non-compliance with a subsequent notice was unsustainable, where the trust had partly complied with the initial notice and was deprived of an effective opportunity to furnish the remaining documents. The Tribunal noted that the charitable trust, engaged in activities relating to education, religion and medical relief, had responded to the first notice issued by the CIT (Exemptions), but failed to reply to the second notice as it inadvertently remained unnoticed. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society, the Tribunal reiterated that the principles of natural justice require a real, reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing, and not a mere paper formality. Holding that the CIT (Exemptions) had afforded insufficient opportunity before rejecting the applications, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters for de novo consideration, directing the CIT (Exemptions) to provide a meaningful opportunity to the trust to produce the necessary evidence and decide the applications afresh in accordance with law.
Cases Discussed
- Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society (Patna HC),(2003) 263 ITR 377 (Patna)
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are directed against the separate orders dated 15.01.2026 framed by CIT (Exemption), Pune denying applications filed for grant of regular registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM (B) and approval u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act.
2. Appellant has raised following common grounds of appeal in these appeals :
“1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of alleged non-compliance, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) failed to appreciate that the alleged non-compliance occurred due to the notices issued on the registered e-mail ID of the assessee trust remaining unchecked and therefore the trust could not furnish the required details within the stipulated time. The said non-compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.
3. Tersely stated, the common facts emerging from the record are that the appellant is a Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.It is engaged in carrying out charitable activities in the filed of education, religion activities, medical relief etc. Appellant trust filed applications on 13.08.2025 and 14.08.2025 seeking grant of regular registration and approval under the respective sections. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant trust, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued notices dt. 23.10.2025 through ITBA portal calling upon the appellant trust to file certain information/clarification. The appellant submitted the requisite details. Thereafter, ld. CIT (Exemption) issued another notice dated 12.2025 pointing out certain discrepancies in the details so submitted. However, appellant could not furnish any reply to the second notice. In the circumstances, the ld. CIT(Exemption) rejected the twin applications filed by the appellant.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the applications the appellant trust preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal assailing the impugned orders passed by CIT(Exemption).
2. Before us, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant trust is genuinely engaged in charitable activities and has stated that appellant submitted partial information before ld.CIT(E) in response to the first notice.
However, the appellant failed to submit the required evidences/documents called for by the Ld.CIT(Exemption) as the notices issued were inadvertently remained unnoticed. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the appellant referred to the affidavit filed by the appellant and demonstrated the reasons for non-compliance. The voluminous details called for by the ld.CIT(Exemption) have now been collected in order to substantiate the genuineness of charitable activities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, ld. Counsel for the appellant prayed for remanding the matters to the file of ld.CIT(Exemption) for furnishing the requisite documents/evidences.
6. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of ld. CIT(Exemption).
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that, in the instant case under consideration, the appellant trust filed applications seeking regular registration u/s.12A of the Act and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Appellant made partial compliance to the first notices issued by ld.CIT(Exemption), however, it failed to comply with the second notices issued by ld.CIT(Exemption). Perusal of impugned orders under challenge would reveal that ld.CIT(Exemption) has provided much less opportunity to furnish the further details and to negate the adverse inference drawn by ld.CIT(Exemption). This inaction of ld.CIT(Exemption) deprived the appellant from reasonable opportunity. In this regard, we would like to take note of the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society (2003) 263 ITR 377 (Patna) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that “opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine of natural justice is a facet of fair play in action and no person shall be saddled with a liability without being heard”. Following the ratio laid down in the above judgment, we hold that rejection of applications of the appellant is unjustified as the appellant was deprived of reasonable opportunity and time to produce the relevant documents to substantiate its claim and therefore the appellant deserves an opportunity of being heard.
8. Considering the factual matrix and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we set aside the impugned findings of CIT(Exemption) in the instant appeals and remand the issues raised in the instant appeals to the file of ld. CIT(Exemption) for denovo consideration of applications. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(Exemption) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant in the set aside proceedings. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in the instant appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 28th day of July, 2026.
