Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 87/JP/2020
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/09/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 14 /09/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of ld. CIT (E), Jaipur dated 09-09.2019 passed under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘’Act’’) on the grounds mentioned hereinbelow. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(E) has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the application of assessee for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Panch Saravgiyan vs .CIT (E), Jaipur 1.1. The ld. CIT(E) has erred on facts and in law in refusing the registration for the reason that no compliance was made of the notices issued by him whereas these notices were not received by the assessee.’’ Due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic condition, the hearing of the appeals are concluded through video conference.
2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust had applied for seeking registration u/s 12AA of the Act before the ld. CIT(Exemption).
It also emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(E) that a letter / Notice No ITBA/EXM/F/41/2019-20/1016507235 (1) dated 26-06-2019 was issued at the E-Mail/ address provided in the application requiring the applicant to submit certain documents/ explanations by 11-07-2019 alongwith original Trust Deed / MOA for verification but no compliance was made by the applicant. Therefore, the said application of the assessee was rejected by the ld. CIT(Exemption) by observing as under:-
‘’4. As discussed above, the applicant did not submit original documents regarding establishment of the trust/society as well as evidences in support of his claim. Under Rule 17A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, the applicant is required to produce original document regarding establishing of the trust/ society for verification but the same has ot been done by the applicant.
To decide the matter of seeking registration u/s 12AA, the genuineness of the activities being taken by the applicant are also to be examined. The applicant has not submitted any 2 Panch Saravgiyan vs .CIT (E), Jaipur such details and other information. Therefore, it is not known that the applicant is fully carrying out the activities as per its objects. Thus, the charitable nature and genuineness of the activities of the applicant could be established.
Sufficient opportunity has been provided to the applicant to produce details and documents in support of his claim for registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 but applicant have failed to do so. In the light of the above facts, the application seeking registration u/s 12AA is hereby rejected and filed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee the ld. CIT(E) required the assessee to submit certain documents and applications for which the communication was sent at the e-mail address provided in the application. However, this mail was not opened by CA Nitesh Goenka and therefore, in the absence of the communication by CA Nitesh Goenka to the assessee, the notice remained uncomplied with. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(E) passed the order u/s 12AA rejecting the application for registration. To this effect, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the non-compliance of the notice issued by ld.CIT(E) is unintentional and it is because of non-communication of the notice by CA Nitesh Goenka to the assessee. To this effect, the affidavit of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain, President of the trust is filed by the ld.AR of the assessee. During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the case 3 Panch Saravgiyan vs .CIT (E), Jaipur of the assessee trust may be sent back to the ld. C1T(E) for deciding the matter afresh in view of the above reasons.
2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to the submission of the ld.AR of the assessee and also relied on the order of the ld.CIT(E).
2.4 We have heard the ld. counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the materials placed on record as well as the order of the Revenue authority. In this case, it is observed that the ld.CIT(E) had issued notice through E-Mail / address provided in the application requiring the applicant to submit certain documents/ explanation by 11-07-2019 alongwith original Trust Deed/MOA for verification but no compliance was made by the applicant for the reason that this E-Mail was not opened by the CA Nitesh Goenka and therefore, the communication could not reach the applicant to comply with the ld. CIT(E) order. The applicant has filed an affidavit to this effect praying that in the absence of information about the date of hearing, the compliance of the ld. CIT(E) could not be made. The ld.AR of the assessee further prayed that he may be given one more chance to contest the case and produce the required documents before the ld. CIT(E) as to the registration of the trust u/s 12AA of the Act. The Bench has taken into consideration all these facts 4 Panch Saravgiyan vs .CIT (E), Jaipur and circumstances of the case and also found that the applicant may be given one more chance in the interest of equity and justice to contest the case before the ld.CIT(E) and also to produce the required documents concerning the registration of the Trust. In this view of the matter, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication and assessee is also directed to submit all the required details before the ld.CIT(E) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open court on 14 /09/2020.