Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These applications were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on grounds of insufficient documents and lack of opportunity for the Assessee to produce further documentation. The Assessee appealed these rejections.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided the Assessee with an opportunity to produce necessary documents and make submissions before deciding the application. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity to the Assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications for registration without providing adequate opportunity to the Assessee to furnish documents and submissions.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The above captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (‘Ld.
CIT(E)’ for short), New Delhi, order dated 28/11/2024 and 28/11/2024 wherein the application filed by the Appellant for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) have been rejected.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the orders impugned have been passed ex-parte, wherein Ld. CIT(E) has not verified the documents produced by the Appellant and without providing opportunity to the appellant to produce further documents and submissions the orders impugned has been passed. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
The Ld. Department's Representative vehemently submitted that the appellant has failed to substantiate the claim in support of the applications filed by the Appellant. Thus, relying on the orders of the Lower Authority, sought for dismissal of the Appeals.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen form the order impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for want of documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant. Considering the fact that the Assessee is claimed to be conducting charitable activities, should have provided opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents and should have decided the application on its merit. Thus, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce any/all documents in support of its claim.
In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.