Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) and registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee failed to submit required details, and a corrupted reply was filed. The applications were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E).
Held
The tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) failed to provide adequate opportunity and that the rejection violated principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of applications for approval/registration by the CIT(E) without providing adequate opportunity and in violation of natural justice is valid.
Sections Cited
80G(5)(iii), 12A(1)(ac)(iii), 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeals filed by appellant/assessee are against the separate orders dated 17.12.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(E)’] rejecting applications in Form 10AB for grant of approval under sections 80G(5)(iii) and registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2024, applicant- assessee submitted applications in Form 10AB for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) and registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The appellant/assessee was issued notice dated 15.07.2024 to furnish certain details. The applicant failed to submit required details. On 7.11.2024, applicant filed reply which was corrupted and not downloadable. The applicant was provided final opportunity vide notices dated 12.11.2024 and 9.12.2024. Ld. CIT(E) vide orders dated 17.12.2024 rejected both the applications.
Being aggrieved, appellant/applicant filed present appeal.
Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/applicant submitted that Ld. CIT(E) failed to give adequate opportunity of being to the applicant to submit documents. The documents submitted through online process were rejected in violation of principles of natural justice.
Learned Departmental Representative for the Department of Revenue submitted that applicant had failed to file relevant documents.
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that learned CIT(E) rejected applications by observing non-filing of evidence/submissions on charitable activities. The applicant had filed reply on 07.11.2024 which was corrupted and not downloadable.
In view of above material facts, in the interest of substantial justice, impugned orders dated 17.12.2024 of Learned CIT(E) are set aside. The matter is restored to the files of the Learned CIT(E) for fresh decision in accordance with law. That applicant shall be afforded fair opportunity to file documents and hearing.