Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Charitable Trust, applied for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the applications due to deficiencies in documents and non-compliance with subsequent notices.
Held
The Tribunal held that the rejections were primarily due to non-furnishing of required documents. The assessee assured that they would comply with all queries if given an opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether rejection of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G was justified without providing adequate opportunity for compliance.
Sections Cited
12A, 80G, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM
O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP:
The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the orders passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, (‘ld.CIT(E)’ for short), rejecting applications seeking registration u/s. 12A and section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).
We have heard Shri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short).
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is stated to be a Charitable Trust, filed applications before the competent authority seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act as well as u/s. 80G of the Act. While verifying assessee’s application for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act, ld. CIT(E) found that in terms with Rule 17A, certain documents were required to be filed along with the application for registration. Finding some deficiencies in complying to the said provision, ld. CIT(E) called upon the assessee to remove the deficiencies.
Additionally, he called for further documents/clarifications from the assessee. Alleging that the assessee did not comply with the queries raised in the subsequent show cause notices, ld. CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application seeking registration u/s. 12A of the Act. As a natural corollary, application seeking approval u/s. 80G of the Act was also rejected.
Before us, it is the say of the assessee that though the assessee complied with the first show cause notice issued by ld. CIT(E), however, it could not comply with the subsequent show cause notices, because of unavoidable circumstances. However, ld. Counsel assured that given an opportunity, assessee will comply with all the queries raised by ld. CIT(E).
The ld. DR submitted, in case the assessee is in a position to comply with the queries raised by the competent authority, the matter may be re-examined by him.
Having considered rival submissions, we find, the only reason based on which assessee’s applications seeking registration u/s. 12AB and approval u/s. 80G of the Act have been rejected is on account of non-furnishing of certain documents/clarifications sought from the assessee. However, before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee has given an assurance that given an opportunity, all the queries raised by the competent authority would be complied with.
Considering the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(E) and restore the matters back to him for reconsideration of applications filed, seeking registration u/s. 12AB and approval u/s.80G of the Act on their own merits. Before taking decision on these applications, the assessee may be provided due and reasonable opportunity of being heard. With the afore-said observations, the matters are restored back to ld. CIT(E).
In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.