Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) were rejected by the CIT(Exemption) for non-compliance with notices and failure to furnish requested documents. The assessee appealed these rejections.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not fully complied with the notices issued by the CIT(E) and had failed to furnish necessary supporting documents. To ensure justice and fair play, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit documents.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval due to non-compliance with notices and lack of supporting documents was justified, and if the matter should be remanded for a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI SONJOY SARMA
आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Both the captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata, dated 23.12.2024 & 22.12.2024 respectively relating to rejection of application filed u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and application u/s.80G(5)(ii) of the Act in Form No.10AB as in the case of the assessee. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR stated that both the appeals are connected with the same assessee and issues involved in both the appeals are common relating to issue of rejecting application u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and application u/s.80G(5)(ii) of the Act in Form No.10AB, therefore, both the appeals may be heard together and for the sake of convenience the common order may be passed in both the cases.
2 ITANo.277&278/Kol/2025 3. ld. AR stated that both the appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(E) on the issue that the assessee did not comply to the notices and furnish the details asked for, therefore, assessee’s application u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and application u/s.80G(5)(ii) of the Act in Form No.10AB were rejected, whereby doing so the ld. CIT(E) also rejected the provisional certificate issued in the case of the assessee. Ld. AR stated that at the time of hearing before the ld. CIT(E), assessee partially complied to the notices issued by the ld.CIT(E), however, on certain issues the assessee could not properly reply to the notice issued by the ld. CIT(E), therefore, the claim of the assessee was rejected. He further prayed that the assessee is ready to furnish the desired documents as asked for if the matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld.CIT(E) with a direction to re-examine the issue after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
On the other hand, ld.CIT-DR did not raise any objection to such prayer made by the assessee, however, he stated that the assessee should comply to the notice issued by the ld. CIT(E) and furnish the supporting documents in order to substantiate his claim.
We after considering the submissions of both the parities and perusing the material available on record, find that in the case of the assessee the ld.CIT(E) rejected the claim of registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and approval u/s.80G(5)(ii) of the Act in Form No.10AB since the assessee did not comply to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(E). Since the assessee has failed to furnish the supporting documents in order to establish its case, therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, it is