SHREE CHHEDA BHAVIK MANDAL KUNDRODI,MUNDRA-KUTCH vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an application seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Act under the provisions of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) before the learned CIT(E). The application was submitted for the purpose of obtaining regular registration under the provisions governing charitable institutions and entities seeking exemption under the Act. During the course of proceedings before the learned CIT(E), the application and documents furnished by the assessee were examined. The Ld. CIT(E) considered the objectives of the association and the activities undertaken by the assessee. Upon such examination, the authority formed a view that the objectives of the association were not found to be for the benefit of the public at large or a sufficient section of the public. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(E) was of the opinion that the assessee had failed to satisfy the conditions necessary for grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. Consequently, the application filed by the assessee was rejected and the provisional registration granted earlier was also cancelled by the competent authority.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the authority below had not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in the proper perspective. It was contended that the objectives of the association are charitable in nature and intended for the benefit of a section of the public. It was further submitted that the relevant documents and explanations furnished by the assessee had not been adequately considered by the learned CIT(E).

The learned AR further submitted that the assessee was prepared to furnish additional documents and explanations in support of its claim and requested that one more opportunity may be granted to place all relevant materials on record. It was

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned order and submitted that the learned CIT(E) had passed the order after considering the material available on record. The learned DR accordingly supported the order of the lower authority.

We have heard the rival submissions of both parties and carefully perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E). It is an established principle that while considering an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act, the authority is required to examine the objects of the institution and the genuineness of its activities. Such examination should be made after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee and considering all relevant documents and explanations furnished in support of the application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh examination at the end of the learned CIT(E). We find that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for reconsideration of the application filed by the assessee in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is also directed to

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.