9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 817 - AT - Income TaxRejecting the applications for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) and cancelling the provisional approvals earlier granted - HELD THAT - Rejection of the applications by the CIT(Exemption) in both cases is founded solely on procedural grounds- namely the assessee s failure to respond to the statutory notices issued for furnishing requisite details and documents. However the assessee has offered a credible and reasonable explanation for such non-compliance citing genuine constraints owing to its rural location and lack of access to digital infrastructure. The delay and default as demonstrated were neither deliberate nor contumacious. It is also noteworthy that the appeals were filed promptly upon the assessee discovering the adverse orders through its consultant reflecting bona fide conduct. Further the trust had already placed on record its audited financial statements and relevant documentary material in prior proceedings which were available with the CIT(Exemption) at the time of deciding the applications. These facts lend credence to the assessee s case and reflect a serious intent to comply with the law. Considering the overall circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves an effective opportunity of hearing. Assessee appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legality of rejection of applications under sections 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G(5)(iii) and cancellation of provisional approvals Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 12A and 80G of the Income-tax Act provide for registration and approval of charitable trusts to enable them to claim exemption and confer tax benefits to donors. Rule 17A(2) and Rule 11AA(2) prescribe procedural requirements for furnishing details and documents to verify eligibility. The principles of natural justice require that an assessee be given adequate opportunity to respond to notices before adverse orders are passed. CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 permits reapplication within prescribed timelines after earlier rejection. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications solely on procedural grounds, i.e., non-response to notices issued for furnishing details and documents, leading to cancellation of provisional registrations/approvals. However, the assessee explained that non-compliance was due to genuine constraints arising from its remote rural location and lack of access to digital infrastructure, which impeded timely communication and response. Key evidence and findings: The assessee trust is registered under the Gujarat Public Trust Act since 2016, with objects wholly charitable in nature, maintaining audited accounts and records. The trust had submitted foundational documents and audited financial statements in prior proceedings, which were available on record. The assessee relied on CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 to file fresh applications within the permitted period. The Tribunal found no indication that the non-response was willful or contumacious. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, observing that rejection without considering the bona fide explanation and without granting effective hearing was unjust. The mere procedural lapse, caused by logistical difficulties, could not justify cancellation of registration/approval when substantive compliance and genuine intent were demonstrated. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on non-response to notices as a ground for rejection was not contested on merits but accepted as a procedural fact. The Tribunal gave weight to the assessee's explanation and absence of wilful default, and also noted the Departmental Representative's non-objection to restoration for fresh adjudication. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the impugned orders were unsustainable as they violated natural justice and failed to appreciate the assessee's bona fide compliance and circumstances. The orders were set aside, and the matters were restored for de novo adjudication after affording effective opportunity of hearing. Issue 2: Adequacy of opportunity of hearing and compliance with principles of natural justice Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice mandate that no order affecting rights or interests be passed without giving the affected party a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This is a fundamental procedural safeguard in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) passed the orders rejecting the applications and cancelling provisional approvals without granting an effective opportunity to the assessee to respond to the notices or to be heard on the merits. The notices issued were not responded to due to genuine constraints, but no further efforts to engage with the assessee or to provide an extended hearing opportunity were made by the CIT(Exemption). Key evidence and findings: The assessee's affidavits, explanation of rural location, dependence on external consultants, and lack of technological access were accepted as credible. The Tribunal noted the absence of any communication from the CIT(Exemption) indicating an opportunity to explain or remedy the non-compliance. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal emphasized that procedural fairness requires the authorities to ensure that parties are not deprived of rights without adequate notice and hearing. The failure to provide such opportunity constituted violation of natural justice. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the lack of opportunity or oppose restoration for fresh consideration, implicitly conceding the procedural lapse. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the principles of natural justice were violated, warranting setting aside of the impugned orders and restoration for fresh adjudication after due hearing. Issue 3: Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal Relevant legal framework: Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act permits the Tribunal to condone delay in filing appeals if sufficient cause is shown. The test is whether the delay was bona fide and for reasons beyond the appellant's control. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the trust's remote rural location, limited internet connectivity, and reliance on a tax consultant in a distant urban center caused delay in awareness and filing of appeals. The delay was not deliberate but due to genuine difficulties. Key evidence and findings: The assessee filed notarized affidavits affirming the facts surrounding the delay and promptly filed appeals upon discovery of adverse orders. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to condonation. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that technical delays caused by genuine constraints should not defeat substantive rights and that justice should not be denied on mere procedural lapses. Conclusions: The delay in filing both appeals was condoned as arising from sufficient and bona fide cause. Issue 4: Consideration of substantive compliance and evidence on record Relevant legal framework: Registration and approval under sections 12A and 80G require compliance with substantive conditions, including charitable objects, maintenance of accounts, and genuineness of activities. Authorities must consider material on record before rejecting applications. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted audited financial statements and foundational documents in earlier proceedings, which were available with the CIT(Exemption) at the time of passing the impugned orders. Despite this, the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications without considering such material, focusing solely on procedural non-compliance. Key evidence and findings: The trust's registration under the Gujarat Public Trust Act, audited accounts, and charitable objectives were undisputed and documented. The CBDT Circular allowing reapplication was duly complied with. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that rejection based purely on procedural grounds without appreciating substantive compliance and evidence on record was arbitrary and unjust. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not challenge the substantive compliance but relied on procedural defaults. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(Exemption) erred in ignoring the evidence and failed to consider the merits, necessitating fresh adjudication. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The rejection of the applications by the CIT(Exemption) in both cases is founded solely on procedural grounds- namely, the assessee's failure to respond to the statutory notices issued for furnishing requisite details and documents. However, the assessee has offered a credible and reasonable explanation for such non-compliance, citing genuine constraints owing to its rural location and lack of access to digital infrastructure. The delay and default, as demonstrated, were neither deliberate nor contumacious." "Considering the overall circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves an effective opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, both impugned orders dated 03.09.2024 (under section 12A) and 14.10.2024 (under section 80G) passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, are hereby set aside. The matters are restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust." Core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue were:
|
