Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Fo Kuang Shan Calcutta Buddhist Centre, filed an appeal against the CIT(E)'s order rejecting its application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The appeal was filed with a delay of 33 days, for which the assessee sought condonation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 33-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons plausible. While noting the assessee's non-cooperation in the original proceedings, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of a Section 12A registration application without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and a delayed appeal against such rejection, should be condoned and remitted for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.09.2024, passed by the CIT(E), Kolkata in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1069103178(). 2. Shri Ashish Rustagai, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, we found that the appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 33 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which in our opinion, is a plausible one and the same is not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits.
It was the submission of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee filed in Form No.10AB for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. CIT(E), so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration.
In reply, Ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(E). It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of CIT(E) would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(E) shows that the assessee has not cooperated in the proceedings before the ld. CIT(E). Ld. CIT(E) has held that the assessee has not replied to notice dated 18.09.2024. However, ld. AR before us requested for one more opportunity to produce the documents before the ld. CIT(E) to file all the details as required. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(E) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.