MAMATA SHORT STAY HOME,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), TELENGANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to submit documents and present its case. The CIT(E) was directed to pass a reasoned order after considering the submissions.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA was rejected by the CIT(E) due to the failure to furnish required documentary evidence. The assessee argued that the COVID-19 pandemic hindered document submission.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) rightly rejected the application for registration without providing sufficient opportunity, especially considering the pandemic, and if the assessee should be granted another chance to submit documents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM
Per Bench: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Hyderabad, (in short 'CIT(E)'), dated 02.09.2020, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds :-
For that the order of the Forum below is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and lack of jurisprudence, hence the same is liable to be quashed and the application for registration to the appellant U/s.12-AA of the Act is ought to be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case.
For that the appellant society has furnished copies of all the required document online before the Ld. CIT(E) during the course of hearing of the application for grant of registration, which he failed to notice, hence the order passed is liable to be quashed.
For that the Forum below has passed the order rejecting the application for registration U/s.12-AA of the Act. Before that he failed to issue show cause notice to the appellant as per principle of natural justice. Hence the order passed arbitrarily is liable to be quashed.
2
For that inspite of clear instructions the Ld. CIT(E) passed the order U/s.12-AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act during pandemic COVID-19 rejecting the application for grant of registration to the appellant society in violation of judicial orders. OS. For that the Forum below has cited the case law of CIT-Vrs.- Savior Charitable Trust reported in (2013) 3S-Taxmann.com-29S (P&H) to reject the application of the appellant. The facts of said case is totally different in comparison to the facts of the present appellant, hence the order passed rejecting the application for registration to the above named society is liable to be quashed.
That the activities' of the appellant society and all other documents in connection with the grant of registration are in order and the society is entitled to get registration U/s.12-AA of the Act. The order of rejection is thus liable to be quashed in the facts of the case. 07.For that the appellant craves the leave to urge/amend/alter other grounds at the time of hearing of appeal. "
At the outset, ld. AR submitted that though the assessee was having all the requisite documents, however, due to pandemic of COVID- 19, could not produce the documents required by the CIT(E) resulting into dismissal of application for grant of registration u/s.12AA of the Act by the CIT(E). Therefore, the ld. AR prayed for an opportunity to place the required documents before the CIT(E).
On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(E).
On careful consideration of the rival submissions of both the parties and on perusal of the relevant material placed in the record of the Tribunal along with the order of the CIT(E), we find that the CIT(E) has passed order as the assessee failed to furnish the documentary evidence as required by him, whereby the genuineness of the activities could not be verified for grant of registration to the assessee society u/s.12AA of the Act. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed paper book consisting
3 of the documentary evidence as required by the CIT(E) and submitted that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to produce the same before the CIT(E) to substantiate its claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the assessee and in the interest of justice, there will be no prejudice to the Revenue if one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(E). Accordingly, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of CIT(E) to pass a speaking and reasoned order considering the submissions of the assessee. The assessee is also directed to submit all the documents to substantiate its claim and cooperate with the CIT(E) positively for early disposal of the case.
We, accordingly as per the terms indicated above set aside all the grounds raised in this appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21/10/ 2021. (सी.एम.गगा) (मनिष बोराड) (C.M.GARG) (MANISH BORAD) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 21/10/2021 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
4 आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीलाथी / The Appellant-
Mamata Short Stay Home, Deulasahi,Tulasipur, Cuttack प्रत्यथी / The Respondent-
CIT(E), Hyderabad, Telengana आयकि आयुक्त(अऩील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकि आयुक्त / CIT 4. 5. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकि अऩीलीय अधधकिण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack गार्ा पाईल / Guard file. 6. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
(Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026