9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the application filed by the appellant trust for grant of regular approval is barred by limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 80G(5). CIT(Exemptions) is not justified in denying the grant of approval u/s. 80G(5) to the appellant trust on the ground of delay in submission of Form No.10AB. In the circumstances, we remand the matter to the file of CIT(Exemptions) with a direction to dispose of the denovo application on merits.Appeal by appellant trust stands partly allowed. - Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Judicial Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee trust directed against the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(Exemptions) observed that in the absence of compliance with the notices issued through ITBA portal on 24.11.2023, he could not reach a conclusion about the genuineness of the activities of the trust and the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in clause (i) to (v) of section 80G of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant trust is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 4. When the matter was called on, none represented the case of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 5. The ld. Sr. DR supporting the order of CIT(Exemptions) submits that no interference by this Tribunal is called for. 6. We heard the ld. Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0G(5) does not lead to any hardship, absurdity or injustice. It is only in the case of later category the literal interpretation leads to hardship, absurdity or injustice as it is impossible to comply with the time limits prescribed under the proviso which had commenced the activities six months prior to the date of grant of provisional approval. Thus, the provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. In such a situation, it is now a settled rule of construction that the courts may modify the language used by the Legislature or even do some violence to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction vide Luke V. IRC (1996) 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
