Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed applications for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. These applications were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). The Assessee contended that the orders were passed ex-parte without proper opportunity.
Held
The Tribunal found that the applications were rejected for want of documents and without hearing the Assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) to decide afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications for registration and approval without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee?
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: These two appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-, Chandigarh (‘Ld.
CIT(E)’ for short) dated 17/03/2023 wherein the applications filed by the Assessee for grant of registration u/s 12A(l)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and in Form 10AB for approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Actwere rejected.
The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant 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 Appeals.
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 from the orders impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the applications for want of documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant and the Appellant has not been heard before passing the orders impugned. Considering the above facts and circumstances, 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.