Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee's application for registration under Section 80G and 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). The Commissioner held that the application was incomplete and the Assessee failed to furnish required documents despite notices. The Assessee contended that the application was duly supported by relevant documents.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee claimed the application was complete with relevant documents, while the Commissioner rejected it for incompleteness and non-response. Setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, providing the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner erred in rejecting the Assessee's application for registration under Section 80G/12AA due to alleged incompleteness and non-furnishing of documents, despite the Assessee's claim of compliance.
Sections Cited
80G, 12AA, 17A(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 21.09.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2024-25. pertains to the rejection of application filed for registration u/s 12AA of the Act and therefore the same is taken for adjudication as a lead case.
The Assessee, at the outset, has drawn our attention to the para no.3 of the impugned order, wherefrom it appears that the Ld. Commissioner has recorded that the application filed by the Assessee in Form 10AB was not complete as all the documents required to be accompanied the application were not furnished and therefore various notices were issued to the Assessee to furnish the complete set of documents mentioned in rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the rules”), however, the Assessee made no response. The Ld. Commissioner therefore having left with no other option, rejected the application seeking registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Whereas the Assessee has claimed before us that the application filed in Form 10AB by the Assessee was duly supported by relevant documents, as it clearly appears from the attachments made in Form 10AB of the Act filed on 31.03.2024 and therefore the decision of the Ld. Commissioner is contrary to the facts and libel to be set aside.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. At this stage, we are inclined not to go into the controversy whether the documents filed by the Assessee in the Form 10AB were sufficient and/or the same as requisitioned by the Ld. Commissioner, while issuing the notice dated 10.07.2024. And therefore considering the reason for not filing of the relevant documents again and any other documents which were essentially required by the Ld. Commissioner on the misconception that it has already filed the relevant documents along with the form 10AB of the Act itself, which appears to be probable cause and in order to resolve the controversy/litigation and for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly. Resultantly, is allowed for statistical purposes.
In view of our decision in is also allowed fin the same terms.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2025.