SAMBHAV CARE FOUNDATION,NATHDWARA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 179/JODH/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 December 2020AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication after providing a fresh hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA and Section 80G was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) for non-compliance with certain directions. The assessee claimed that the necessary documents were filed but were ignored.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration applications under Section 12AA and 80G was justified without considering all the documents filed by the assessee and providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM &

For Appellant: Shri Shyam S. Singhvi (CA)- Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri K.C. Bhadok - Ld. CIT- DR

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.179/Jodh/2019
I.T.A. No.55/Jodh/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. In these appeals, the assessee is aggrieved by rejection of registration application u/s 12AA as well as u/s 80G(5) by Ld. CIT(Exemption) vide separate orders dated 28/01/2019.

2 ITA Nos.179 & 55/Jodh/2019 Sambhav Care Foundation 2. The registry has noted a delay of 49 days in ITA No.179/Jodh/2019 which arises out of the fact that the assessee was denied registration vide two separate orders both dated 28/01/2019. However, the assessee preferred single appeal against both the orders. This appeal was filed within time. Subsequently, realizing the mistake, separate appeal has been filed and accordingly, delay has taken place. Going by the submissions, we find that the delay was unintentional, bona-fide and under the mistaken impression. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed with adjudication of appeals, on merits. 3. The perusal of order rejecting registration u/s 12AA would show that the assessee filed Form No.10A on 19/07/2018 seeking registration u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee was directed to submit certain documents / explanations. But no compliance was made. Despite another opportunity, full compliance was not made. Going by the material on record, Ld. CIT(E) concluded that the assessee was not interested in registration and therefore the application was rejected. Consequently, registration u/s 80G was also denied. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR advanced arguments in support of registration applications and submitted that the assessee was very much interested in getting the registrations. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that all the requisite details / documents were duly filed by the assessee with ITO (exemption), which was ignored while rejecting the applications. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the

3 ITA Nos.179 & 55/Jodh/2019 Sambhav Care Foundation assessee’s own negligence has resulted into rejection of applications. 5. After going through the arguments as well as material placed before us, we opine that the assessee deserve another opportunity of hearing before rejection of applications. The details / documents filed by the assessee have not been considered before rejecting the applications. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore the matter of registration u/s 12AA as well u/s 80G back to the file of Ld. CIT(exemption) to re-adjudicate the same after affording another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate his stand and the failure to do so would enable Ld. CIT(E) to proceed with disposal of applications on the basis of material on record. 6. Both the appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member

मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 21/12/2020 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, जोधपुर / DR, ITAT, Jodhpur 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.

ITA Nos.179 & 55/Jodh/2019 Sambhav Care Foundation

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, जोधपुर / ITAT, Jodhpur.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →