Approval application under section 10(23C)(iii) set aside; matter remitted for de novo adjudication considering s.245D(4) order

ITAT set aside the rejection of the application for approval u/s 10(23C)(iii) and remitted the matter to CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, directing consideration of the ITSC order u/s 245D(4) which had examined seized and impounded materials for AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21. ITAT found the CIT(E) relied solely on the ADIT report from pre-25-09-2019 documents and failed to consider the settlement order; provisional approval in Form 10AC was noted. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case; appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the approving authority validly rejected the application for approval under section 10(23C)(iii) based solely on the report of the Directorate of Investigation alleging misuse of society funds.

2. Whether an order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) under section 245D(4), read with the finality provision of section 245-I, which considers seized/impounded material, is binding on the approving authority and must be taken into account when adjudicating an application for exemption/registration.

3. Whether principles of natural justice were observed where no show-cause notice or opportunity to clarify was issued to the applicant before rejecting the approval application.

4. Whether provisional approval already granted in Form No.10AC is relevant and material to the adjudication of the registration/approval application.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Reliance on Directorate of Investigation report as sole basis for rejection

Legal framework: The approving authority considers materials relevant to eligibility under section 10(23C)(iii) and may reject an application where misuse of funds is established by admissible material.

Precedent Treatment: No external precedents were cited or applied by the Tribunal; the Court reviewed administrative action in light of evidence including seized documents and settlement outcomes.

Interpretation and reasoning: The rejecting order was founded principally on the Directorate of Investigation report premised on seized/impounded documents and contemporaneous allegations that society funds were used for personal and business purposes. The Tribunal found that the very documents relied upon by the Directorate had been considered and settled by the ITSC for the relevant period. Because the impugned rejection flowed from the same seized material which had been dealt with conclusively by ITSC, reliance on that report without addressing the ITSC outcome was improper.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An approving authority cannot reject an application solely on the basis of a report which is founded on seized/impounded material that has been conclusively dealt with by the ITSC; such material and the ITSC's adjudication must be considered. Obiter - None beyond the immediate application of settled material to the facts.

Conclusions: The rejection based solely on the Directorate report was unsustainable while the ITSC order covering the same material remained unconsidered; the matter required re-adjudication.

Issue 2 - Binding effect of ITSC order under section 245D(4) and section 245-I

Legal framework: Section 245D(4) empowers the ITSC to pass orders after consideration of seized/impounded material; section 245-I renders ITSC settlement orders final and conclusive in specified respects.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal treated the ITSC order as conclusive in terms of section 245-I; no attempt was made by the approving authority to distinguish or re-open settled findings.

Interpretation and reasoning: The ITSC order dated 30-03-2023 covered assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21 and expressly considered all seized and impounded documents, pen drives, laptops and sworn statements. Because the Directorate's report and the approving authority's adverse inferences were drawn from the very same seized material and pertained to periods covered by the ITSC settlement (i.e., prior to 25-09-2019 and up to March 2020), the ITSC order had direct material bearing on the approval application. In view of the statutory finality under section 245-I, the approving authority was bound to consider the ITSC order and could not proceed to reject without reconciling its findings with the ITSC adjudication.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A subsequent administrative adjudication rejecting registration/approval cannot ignore an ITSC settlement order that has considered and settled the same seized/impounded material; the ITSC order is conclusive and must be taken into account. Obiter - Observations that the ITSC order did not contain adverse findings for periods after March 2020 and that provisional approval post-dates the settlement are factual adjuncts rather than general pronouncements.

Conclusions: The ITSC order is determinative as to the material it settled; the approving authority's failure to consider that order rendered its rejection legally flawed and necessitated de novo reconsideration in light of the ITSC findings.

Issue 3 - Violation of principles of natural justice by not issuing show-cause or seeking clarification

Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that an applicant be given an opportunity to explain, clarify or rebut adverse material relevant to an administrative decision affecting its rights (including approval/registration under tax-exemption provisions).

Precedent Treatment: No specific case law was applied; the Tribunal applied general principles of fair procedure and opportunity to be heard.

Interpretation and reasoning: The record showed that requisite information had been submitted by the applicant and that no show-cause notice or request for clarification was issued before denial. Given that the rejecting authority relied on seized material and a Directorate report, procedural fairness required that the applicant be afforded an opportunity to respond to those specific adverse inferences-particularly where the same material had already been addressed by ITSC. The absence of any such opportunity was a breach of natural justice.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Denial of approval without issuing a show-cause or seeking clarifications on adverse material, especially when the applicant had furnished information and when the adverse material had been subject to ITSC adjudication, constitutes a procedural infirmity warranting re-adjudication. Obiter - None beyond this procedural conclusion.

Conclusions: The failure to provide the applicant an opportunity to rebut/adduce clarification on the Directorate's findings amounted to a breach of natural justice, supporting remand for de novo adjudication.

Issue 4 - Relevance of provisional approval in Form No.10AC

Legal framework: Provisional approvals are relevant administrative acts indicating interim acceptance of eligibility criteria pending final adjudication.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal treated the prior provisional approval as a material fact to be considered in the fresh adjudication.

Interpretation and reasoning: The provisional approval granted on 24-09-2021 post-dated the period settled by ITSC and preceded the rejecting order. The Tribunal observed that there were no adverse findings for periods after March 2020 and that provisional approval had been granted. While provisional approval is not determinative of final approval, it is a relevant circumstance that the approving authority must consider when reassessing eligibility, particularly alongside the ITSC order and the applicant's rebuttals.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Provisional approval is a relevant material factor which must be considered in the course of fresh adjudication; its existence strengthens the case for re-examination but does not itself mandate final approval. Obiter - Observations on lack of adverse findings post-March 2020 are fact-specific.

Conclusions: Provisional approval is a material consideration for de novo adjudication and should be taken into account together with the ITSC order and the applicant's submissions.

Remedial Disposition

Because the rejecting order relied on seized material conclusively dealt with by the ITSC, and because no opportunity to rebut or clarify was afforded despite the applicant having furnished information, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the registration/approval application for de novo consideration by the approving authority in light of the ITSC settlement and the applicant's pleaded rebuttals; all issues were left open for fresh adjudication.

---