Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee's grievance was that the rejection order was passed without providing an opportunity of being heard.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to produce documents and make submissions before deciding the application on its merits. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
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 Appellant against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(E)’ for short) dated 05/12/2024 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.
None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present appeal.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 applications, the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided opportunity of being heard 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