SAVERA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) did not express any objection to assessee’s request.

Considering the above, we permit the assessee to withdraw the aforesaid two appeals. Accordingly, & 2699/Mum/2025 are dismissed as withdrawn.

So far as the other two appeals, being & 1262/Mum/2025 are concerned, briefly, the facts are, the assessee on 28.01.2023 had filed an application in Form No. 10AB, seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act, having already availed provisional registration. Separately, the assessee also filed an application, seeking approval u/s. 80G of the Act.

After receiving aforesaid applications, ld. CIT(E) called for certain information/documents from the assessee. It is observed, alleging that the assessee failed to fully comply with the queries raised, ld. CIT(E) rejected both the applications.

Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee, submitted that in response to the queries raised in respect of the earlier applications, the assessee had to some extent made with had he given reasonable opportunity. He submitted, without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to comply in terms of with the notice issued, applications should not have been rejected. Thus, he submitted, the orders passed by ld. CIT(E), rejecting assessee’s applications should be set aside with a direction to consider the applications de novo on merits.

The ld. DR supported the decision of ld. CIT(E).

Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we find, the second set of applications filed by the assessee seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and approval u/s. 80G of the Act have been rejected by ld. CIT(E) merely for the reason that they are not maintainable, as the assessee has not complied with the queries made in response to notice issued in respect of earlier applications. This, in our view, is unsustainable. Regard being had to the fact that provisional registration has already been granted to the assessee, applications filed by the assessee seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and approval u/s. 80G of the Act, should have been considered on merits, rather than, dismissing them on technical grounds.

In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the respective orders passed by ld. CIT(E), rejecting assessee’s applications seeking registration u/s. 12A and approval u/s. 80G of the Act and restore the matters back to his file for de novo adjudication on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.