KANHA WELLNESS & RETREAT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

In the present case, the assessee has filed an application in Form 10AB dated 30/09/2024 for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. A remand report was called for by the ld. CIT(E) from the juri ictional AO to verify the charitable activities of the assessee. Subsequently, the juri ictional Assessing Officer along with the Range head after considering the submission filed by the assessee has not recommended for approval of the registration application made u/s 12AB of the Act. In view of the report furnished by the AO/Range, the ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 20/03/2025 dismissed the registration application filed u/s 12AB of the Act by the assessee.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 191 and contended that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act without complying the provisions specified under clause (ii)(b) of subs-section 1 to sec. 12AB of the Act. Furthermore, the AR contended that the remand report called from the juri ictional AO was not confronted to the assessee. Moreover, the ld. CIT(E) was mandated to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the registration application but such opportunity has not been provided to the assessee.

On the other hand, the ld. DR did not raise any objection if the matter is set aside to the file of ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is an admitted position that the ld. CIT(E) is mandated to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. However, in the case on hand, the ld. CIT(E) has not complied such provision of law.

1 In addition to the above, it is also seen that the registration application filed by the assessee u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected by the ld. CIT(E) based on the recommendation made by the juri ictional AO. However, such report from the juri ictional AO was not confronted to the assessee, which is against the principles of natural justice. In view of the above and to meet the principle of natural justice, we are inclined to set aside the issue to the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law after affording necessary opportunities of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

The facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case discussed above, therefore, respectfully following the same, we are inclined to set aside the issue to the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law after affording necessary opportunities of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is admittedly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

In the combined result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file