ARYABHATTA ENVIRONMENT AND NATURE FOUNDATION,BERHAMPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, HYDERABAD

Shri Sanklap Shri Sanklap Kumar Sahu, CA appeared for the assessee and Shri he assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam ld PR.CIT (OSD) M.K.Gautam ld PR.CIT (OSD) appeared for the revenue. appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee company had obtained provisional registration u/s.12AA of the Act, which is valid from A.Y. 2022- 23 till A.Y. 2024-25. It was submitted that the assessee had applied for final registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) on 3rd June, 2022 within six months of the order of the provisional registration. Ld CIT(E) called for additional information/documents to the assessee, which were complied. Further, the ld CIT(E) issued another notice for additional information giving the assessee only 3 days time to respond the same. It was the submission that as the assessee was out of station during the said period, further time was sought to submit the details. However, the ld CIT(E) did not consider the application of the assessee and reject the application for final registration u/s.12AA of the Act. It was the prayer that if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to produce the evidences, as required by the ld CIT(E), the assessee would furnish the same and cooperate with the proceedings.

In reply, ld Pr. CIT(OSD) did not oppose the request of ld A.R. of the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of order of the ld impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(E) has rejected the application for final registration u/s.12A of the Act on the ground that the required additional documents/information was not furnished by the assessee despite the fact that notice was issued to the assessee. It was the P a g e 2 | 4 contention of ld AR of the assessee that the assessee was only given 3 days time to respond the notice dated 16.12.2022 by 19.12.2022 and since during the said period, the assessee was out of the station, the required documents were not furnished and the ld CIT(E) without giving further time, rejected the application. Before us, ld AR of the assessee has requested that if one more opportunity is given, the assessee would furnish the details as required by the ld CIT(E). Considering the above fact and in order to render substantial justice, we are of the view that the matter should be restored to the file of the ld CIT(E) for fresh adjudication of the application for registration. We order accordingly. We also direct the assessee to furnish the required documents/information, as required by ld CIT(E) in the fresh set aside adjudication of the application for registration.