DHRISTI CHILD HELP FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 608/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 March 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to resolve the controversy regarding the completeness of the submitted documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) for not furnishing complete documents. The assessee claimed they had submitted all required documents, while the Commissioner stated otherwise and issued notices for further documentation, which were not responded to.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner erred in rejecting the application for registration without considering the documents submitted by the assessee and whether a fresh opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,Section 80G

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

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. D.R

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.

3.

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.

4.

On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.

5.

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.

6.

In view of our decision in is also allowed fin the same terms.

7.

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.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →