Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Act. The CIT(E) rejected these applications for not submitting requisite documents. The assessee claimed to have submitted documents, but the CIT(E) did not consider them.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the documents were submitted to the ITO (Exemption) and not directly to the CIT(E). The case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration and approval without considering the documents submitted by the assessee, and if not, whether remitting the case back for fresh adjudication is appropriate.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate Orders passed by the CIT(E), Bangalore, vide DIN and NoticeNos.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071651611(1) and ITBA/EXM/F /EXM45/2024-25/1072654327(1) dated 28.12.2024 and 29.01.2025, for the Assessment Year 2025-26, for rejection of registration under section 12AB of the Act and for not granting approval under section 80G of the Act.
Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed off by way of this common Order.
, 339/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 3. Assessee filed Form No.10AB on 31.07.2024 for registration under section 12AB of the Act and filed Form No.10AB dated 13.08.2024 for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. During the course of proceedings before the authorities below, assessee filed documents before the jurisdictional AO and assessee was given opportunity by the ld.CIT (E) for producing the documents for granting registration under section 12AB of the Act and for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. But in both the cases, the learned CIT(E) noted that the assessee was unable to file the requisite documents before him. The learned Counsel submitted that various documents were submitted on 26.11.2024 & 04.12.2024, acknowledgement of which are placed at Paper Book page Nos.18 to 25 for substantiating its case against notices issued by the Revenue authorities but the learned CIT(E) has not taken into consideration these documents for deciding the case and requested that the matter may be sent back to learned CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of the learned CIT(E).
Considering the rival submissions and after perusing the entire records and the Order of the authorities below, we noted that the learned CIT(E) has observed that assessee has not submitted documents for substantiating its case before him whereas the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted the acknowledgement of documents which are placed at Paper Book Page Nos.18 to 25. As per acknowledgement of page no. 25 it was submitted before ITO (Exemption) but not before the ld. CIT(E). The documents should have been produced before the appropriate authority. who has issued notice. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting the issue back to the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration and the learned CIT(E) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to submit the requisite documents for substantiating its case and is further directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments for speedy disposal of the , 339/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 case. In case of failure, no second opportunity shall be granted to the assessee. A common order passed shall be kept in respective case files.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the court on the date mentioned on the caption page.