KNOWLEDGE HUB FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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.