Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(E) rejecting their applications for registration under sections 12A and 80G. The assessee contended that they had provided all required details and that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing an opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration under Section 12A and 80G without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Sections Cited
12A, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN
(Assessment Year: 2024-25) Shri Ram Maharaja Agarsen Vradhashram Society, vs. CITE (E), Budh Bazar, Brij Ghat, Lucknow. Garh Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad – 201 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AADTS9139H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Mukul Gupta, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow[“Ld. CIT(E)”, for short] dated 27.11.2024 & 10.01.2025 for the AY 2024-25.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that the assessee has complied to the notices vide reply dated 24.06.2024, 18.11.2024 and 19.11.2024. He submitted that rejection of application u/s 80G(5)(iii) by the ld. CIT (E) is not maintainable as assessee submitted complete details as asked for in the notices. He submitted that ld. CIT (E) has rejected the application for registration without considering the reply and documents filed at the time of proceedings and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(E) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Similarly, the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act was also rejected.
On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and relied on the order of Ld. CIT (E).
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the ld. CIT (E) rejected the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we direct ld. CIT (E) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (E) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Similarly, the registration u/s 80G was also rejected on the same ground. The assessee is in appeal before us by filing separate appeal vide . We remit this issue also back to the file of ld. CIT (E) in the interest of justice. Both the issues under consideration may be decided as per law.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13TH day of May, 2025 after the conclusion of the hearing.