2021 (7) TMI 576 - AT - Income Tax

Grant of approval u/s 80G - CIT-E rejected the application filed by the assessee in Form-10G for approval u/s 80G by holding that the assessee failed to file any reply to the show cause notice, hence, the genuineness of the assessee-trust is doubtful - HELD THAT - CIT(E) mentioned in his order that the assessee failed to file reply to the order sheet entry dated 24/04/2019 and alleged on other issues also. The AR of the assessee undertook that if one opportunity is granted to the assessee, he will explain the same with documentary evidence. We remit the issue back to the file of CIT(E) with a direction to examine the reply filed by the assessee and if he is satisfied, grant the approval u/s 80G in accordance with law and on merits of the case after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to comply to the notices or any directions from the CIT(E), if any, in the proceedings before him for obtaining approval u/s 80G. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by CIT(E), Hyderabad.
2. Allegations of operating for the benefit of other entities and conflict of interest.
3. Incorrect inferences drawn by CIT(E) regarding office premises and tournaments organized.
4. Observations on the award of construction contract and salaries paid to coaches.
5. Failure to file a reply to show cause notice leading to doubts on the genuineness of the assessee-trust.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of CIT(E), Hyderabad rejecting the application for approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) issued a notice to the assessee to produce necessary documents, and upon examination, rejected the application citing lack of reply to the show cause notice, raising doubts on the genuineness of the assessee-trust. The ITAT remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for re-examination after the assessee undertook to explain with documentary evidence, directing a fair hearing and compliance with necessary procedures for granting approval u/s 80G.

2. The CIT(E) made allegations regarding the assessee operating for the benefit of other entities and conflict of interest due to shared directorship and land ownership. The ITAT found the inferences drawn by the CIT(E) to be incorrect and directed a re-examination of the facts, emphasizing the need for a proper appreciation of the circumstances before making such conclusions.

3. Incorrect inferences were noted by the CIT(E) regarding the office premises and tournaments organized by the assessee. The ITAT highlighted the failure to consider basic facts and directed the CIT(E) to reassess the situation accurately, especially regarding the assistance provided in organizing tournaments while the tennis courts were under construction.

4. Observations by the CIT(E) on the award of construction contract and salaries paid to coaches were deemed incorrect and unsustainable by the ITAT. The ITAT emphasized the need for a proper understanding of the facts before making such conclusions and directed a reevaluation of these aspects to ensure a fair decision.

5. The failure to file a reply to the show cause notice led to doubts on the genuineness of the assessee-trust, as noted by the CIT(E). The ITAT directed a re-examination of the case, emphasizing the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case with documentary evidence and ensuring compliance with procedural requirements for obtaining approval u/s 80G. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, providing a chance for a fair hearing and resolution of the issues raised.

← Previous Next →