Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable trust, filed applications for permanent registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejected these applications citing non-response to notices and lack of necessary documents.
Held
The Tribunal held that the rejection orders required reconsideration as the assessee claimed to have filed replies with acknowledgment numbers. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and directed fresh consideration of the applications.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration and approval without considering the assessee's replies to notices.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
These are the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the Ld.CIT(E), Bengaluru in which the application for registration as well as the application for the approval were rejected and raised the following grounds:
Both these appeals are related to the same assessee and the issue involved in both the appeals are similar and therefore we decided to take up both the appeals together and pass a common order for the sake of convenience.
& 2965/Bang/2025 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust and got their provisional registration and also the approval u/s. 80G of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed applications for permanent registration as well as for the approval on 29/06/2024. The Ld.CIT(E) had rejected both the applications for the reason that the assessee had not responded to the notices and also not submitted the necessary documents. As against the said orders, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had filed their reply on 13/12/2024 vide acknowledgement nos. 751643091131224 and 751553701131224 and therefore submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(E) is not a well considered order and liable to be set aside.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
The Ld.CIT(E) had rejected both the applications because the assessee had not responded to the notices issued by the jurisdictional AO and also not produced the necessary documents in support of their applications. This fact was disputed by the assessee by saying that suitable replies were filed through online and also furnished the acknowledgment number for filing the said replies.
Considering the said fact that the assessee had already filed their objections on 13/12/2024, we are of the view that the order of the Ld.CIT(E) rejecting the application for registration as well as the approval u/s. 80G requires reconsideration. We, therefore set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(E) and direct him to consider the applications afresh and also the objections filed by the assessee on 13/12/2024 and thereafter decide the applications & 2965/Bang/2025 after hearing the assessee in person. In the course of such proceedings, we also permit the assessee to file further documents if any required.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th August, 2025.