COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to issue a fresh notice to the assessee and provide a fair opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee applied for registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application as the notice sent to the assessee was returned unserved and the assessee failed to appear or provide necessary documents.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the registration application without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee, especially when the notice was returned unserved.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 850/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Community Development vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Foundation, Hyderabad. (Exemptions), Hyderabad. PAN – AACTC 2190H Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas Date of hearing: 24/09/2019 Date of pronouncement: 27/09/2019 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(E), Hyderabad dated 05/12/2018, rejecting the assessee’s application for registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee submitted its application in Form No. 10A for registration u/s 12A of the IT Act on 23/06/2018. The CIT(E) issued a notice dated 19/11/2018 to the assessee to appear on or before 05/12/2018and produce its original Memorandum of Association (MoA)/Trust Deed for verification and to furnish a detailed reply on specific points. The said letter was returned unserved by the Postal Department with an endorsement “No such CDF at this address”. Therefore, the CIT(E) observed that existence of the assessee’s trust is in doubt and he also observed that as per rule 17A, the assessee has to file copy of income and expenditure account. Since assessee did not
2 I.T.A. No. 850/Hyd/19 Community Development Foundation, Hyd.
appear and did not file the necessary details before him, the CIT(E) held assessee has violated rule 17A and has not produced bills/vouchers and books of account for verification and hence, he rejected the assessee’s application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us stating that the CIT(E) ought to have allowed one more opportunity to the assessee to support the application with necessary evidence, before rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A and also stated that CIT(E) rejected the application without going through the relevant material. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for setting aside the order of CIT(E) and directions to be given to CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh.
Ld. DR, on the other hand, opposed the submissions the ld. AR, but, stated that he had no objection for remanding the matter back to the file of CIT(E).
After considering the submissions of both the sides and considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of CIT(E), and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to reconsider the issue on merits after giving fresh notice to the assessee to the address given in Form No. 36, through which the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the CIT(E) by filing all the necessary documents for verification. We also make it clear that CIT(E) is required to look into the objectives of the assessee trust alone while granting registration u/s 12A of the Act. With these observations, the CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the assessee’s application in
3 I.T.A. No. 850/Hyd/19 Community Development Foundation, Hyd.
accordance with law after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the matter.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, dated 27th September, 2019. kv Copy forwarded to: 1. Community Development Foundation, C/o M. Anandam & Co., CAs., Flat No. 7A, Surya Towers, SP Road, Secunderabad. 2. CIT(E), 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3. ITO(E) - 1, Hyderabad. 4. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. Guard File
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026