AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(E)), dated 29.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2026-27.
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.The learned CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application of the appellant trust for approval under section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the appellant furnishing all requisite documents and explanations.
2.The learned CIT (Exemptions) failed to appreciate that the appellant trust has been carrying out genuine charitable activities since inception, duly supported by audited accounts, bank statements, vouchers, photographs, and other documentary evidence.
3.The learned CIT (Exemptions) erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant trust is already registered under section 12A of the Act, which establishes the charitable nature of its activities and entitles it to approval under section 80G.
4.The learned CIT (Exemptions) wrongly treated cash expense incurred for charitable purpose, without appreciating that the cash expenditure vouchers relating to charitable activities.
5.The learned CIT (Exemptions) erred in appreciating the activities conducted by the appellant WHARE an expenses of Rs. 17,60,000/ were incurred on a medical conference, ignoring the fact that the expenditure was incurred for organizing a medical conference (ENIGMA-2) focusing on the prevention, early detection and cure of cancer which is directly aligned with the charitable objects of the trust, i.e., medical relief and public health awareness.
6.The rejection order is bad in law as the learned CIT (Exemptions) failed to provide adequate opportunity to rebut alleged irregularities and did not properly consider the detailed replies and supporting evidence filed by the appellant.
7.The rejection order is arbitrary and passed without proper application of mind, as it merely reproduces allegations without cogent findings OR reasoning.
8.That the impugned order is bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, and unsustainable, and therefore liable to be set aside.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to its grounds of appeal no.3 (supra) and submitted that the order of ld. CIT(E) dated 29.10.2025 rejecting assessee’s petition for grant of approval u/s 80G(5) is non-maintainable. It was submitted that since the assessee on the impugned dated i.e. 29.10.2025 was in possession of an approval under section 12A for AYs 2022-23 to AY 2026-27, its application under section 80G(5) could not have been rejected.
Heard rival submissions. Perused material available on records.
We have noted that assessee’s contention qua availability of approval under section 12A vide order dated 29.10.2025 for AYs 2022-23 to AY 2026-27 is a matter borne on records. We have also noted from the assailed order dated 29.10.2025 that the ld. CIT(E) had called for detailed submissions from the assessee, which were complied by the assessee. A perusal of para-3.4 to para 6 of the impugned order from pages 13 to 22 alludes that the ld. CIT(E) had examined and indicated several deficiencies and short-comings which led to her rejection of assessee’s application. There is nothing on records or in the impugned order to suggest that the assessee was given an opportunity to tender any explanation and/or to defend its case in any constructive manner. We are therefore considered view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is set-aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for re-adjudication of the matter de novo. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) dated 29.10.2025 for fresh adjudication de novo and in accordance with law by way of passing a speaking order. The assessee shall be bounden to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) in response to statutory notices issued by the authority. Any non-compliance can be adversely viewed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.