9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the application that one discovers that the same is qua an application for approval u/s. 80G(5) r/w r. 11AA of the Rules. It is perhaps for the reason that both the provisions provided for application in the same format that led to it being construed by the competent authority as for another. Whatever may be the cause, it is indeed very unfortunate that an application by a charitable institution is treated in such a careless and cavalier manner, which in fact deserves imposition of cost. There is, resultantly, no question of the assessee s application being decided on merits, i.e., qua the said grant or otherwise of the approval under s. 80G(5)(iv), which an order granting approval or, as the case may be, denying it, is to specify in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22. The only manner whereby an approval u/s. 80G(5) can be denied to an applicant is on the ground of non-satisfaction of the conditions set out in s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act, even as clarified in Rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules), as indeed per several decisions in the matter. At the instance of the Bench, he would take us through the relevant provisions of the Act. Shri Das, the CIT-DR, could not rebut any of the contentions made, on the basis of material on record, by Shri Oommen. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 The impugned order reads as under: (by way of Annexure to Form 10D): M/s. Jethro Rehabilitation Trust hereinafter the Applicant Assessee has applied for Registration/Approval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case may be, denying it, is to specify in clear terms along with reasons therefor. 4. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in, setting aside the impugned order, direct (re)adjudication by the competent authority on merits, per a speaking order, and in accordance with law, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Shri Oommen would, on the Bench so observing, pray for being heard personally, explaining that the process of hearing has since been centralised. We do not wish to be seen as interfering in the manner prescribed in this regard, i.e., representation, in view of the introduction of the faceless scheme. So, however, in case there is a provision thereunder for the same, it be extended to the assessee following the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
