Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed appeals against the order of the CIT(E) rejecting their applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was a delay in filing the appeals, which was condoned due to the Assessee's medical condition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided the Assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce documents before rejecting the application. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of registration applications under Section 12A and Section 80G was made without affording the Assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. PoojaSwaroop CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: These two present appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(E)’ for short) dated 29/10/2024 wherein the application filed by the Assessee for grant of registration u/s 12A(1) (ac) (iii) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) has been rejected.
There is a delay of 28 days in filing the present Appeals. The Assessee filed application for condonation of delay contending that Assessee was not medically fit and was under medical treatment, therefore, the appeal could not be filed on time. For the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the captioned Appeals are condoned.
None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing Ld. Department's Representative and verifying the material on record. We have the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record.
We have the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. The grievance of the Assessee is that the orders impugned have been passed without providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. It can be seen from the order impugned, the Ld. CIT(E) has passed the order impugned on the ground the Assessee has not substantiated its claim by producing proper document and making submission. Considering the claim of the Assessee in the application the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents and should have decided the application on its merit. Thus, 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 cure/comply any technical objections if any in the applications filed by the Appellant and also produce further documents in support of its claim.
In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May , 2025