Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee applied for renewal of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications, stating they were filed under the wrong section code.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed the applications under the correct sections, and the CIT's rejection was based on a wrong assumption of facts.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the renewal applications for registration on the grounds of being filed under the wrong sections.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G(5), 12A, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
Both the appeals arise against the order passed by the learned CIT (Exemption) dated 31/01/2025 rejecting the applications filed by the assessee for the renewal of registration under sections 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act.
The relevant facts, as evident from the materials available on record, are that the assessee applied for renewal of registration under sections 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. However, the learned CIT (Exemption) found that both the applications for registration in Form 10AB, dated 27th September 2024, were filed under the wrong section & 649/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 code. Consequently, the learned CIT (Exemption), vide order dated 31st January 2025, rejected the applications filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the present appeals before us.
The learned AR before us submitted paper books running from pages 1 to 53 and 1 to 41 relating to the applications for renewal of registration under sections 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. It was contended that both applications were made under the correct provisions—namely, sub-clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act and clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act. The learned AR, in support of this contention, drew our attention to pages 14 and 24 of the paper books, where the relevant applications for renewal under sections 12AB and 80G(5) were placed. Accordingly, it was submitted that the learned CIT (Exemption) rejected the applications based on an incorrect assumption of facts. The learned AR therefore prayed that the issue be set aside to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
On the contrary, the learned DR could not controvert the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the assessee. The learned DR also did not raise any objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the applications made by . the assessee, as placed in the paper book, we note that the renewal applications were filed under the correct sections. Therefore, the impugned rejection of the registration applications by the learned CIT (Exemption) was based on a wrong assumption of facts. Thus, in the ainterest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 25th day of June, 2025