SARASWATHI SISHU MANDIR PARICHALANA SAMITI,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, SAMBALPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documents, but the CIT(E) had not considered them before rejecting the application. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for readjudication after considering the evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Exemption) who rejected their application for registration. The assessee contended that they had submitted necessary details through the e-portal, but these were not considered by the CIT(E).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration without considering the submissions and evidence filed by the assessee.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord CIT(E), Hyderabad dated 1.8.2024 CIT(E), Hyderabad dated 1.8.2024 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2024-25.
Shri Natabar Panda and Shri Dulal Satyanarayan Jethi, Natabar Panda and Shri Dulal Satyanarayan Jethi, ld ARs Natabar Panda and Shri Dulal Satyanarayan Jethi, appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 5
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(E), Hyderabad rejected the assessee’s application mentioning that the necessary details were not submitted. Ld AR placed before us the copies of acknowledgements by which submissions were filed on 8.5.2024 and 5.7.2024 through e-portal before the ld CIT(E). The details filed by the assessee is as follows:
“ Notice date Due date Comply No. of Ack. No. documents date attached 26.4.2024 `9.5.2024 8.5.2024 10 206438511080524
10 206443021080524
1 206443771080524 20.5.2024 30.5.2024 30.5.2024 1 375651991300524 10.7.2024 18.7.2024 15.7.2024 `1 719970651150724
It was the submission that as ld CIT(E) has not considered the submissions of the assessee, which consists of nearly 22 documents as follows:
P a g e 2 | 5
“
P a g e 3 | 5
It was the submission that the appeal of the assessee should be allowed.
In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that it is human who make the mistake. The issues should be restored to the file of the ld CIT(E) for readjudication.
We have considered the rival submission. As it is found that the assessee has filed submissions before the ld CIT(E) but the ld CIT(E) has not considered the submissions and has rejected the application for registration. Hence, the issues in this appeals are restored to the file of the ld CIT(E) for readjudication after considering the evidences as submitted by the assessee after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/10/2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026