HIRALAL MADANLAL BAJAJ CHARITY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2188/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 January 2025Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2188/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: NA Hiralal Madanlal Bajaj Charity Trust Vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata (PAN: AAATH 4211 L) Appellant / (अपीलार्थी) Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Date of Hearing / सुनवाई की तिथि 31.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement/ 17.01.2025 आदेश उ‌द्घोषणा की तिथि For the assessee / निर्धारिती की ओर से Shir Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate For the revenue / राजस्व की ओर से Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju,1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E) and therefore set aside the order. The CIT(E) was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hiralal Madanlal Bajaj Charity Trust, appealed against an order of the CIT(Exemption). There was a significant delay of 457 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the assessee not receiving notices from the CIT(E).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E) before passing the impugned order, despite a delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 08.05.2023. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 457 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed condonation petition for explaining the delay. The Ld. DR did not

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee instead of argument on merit has submitted that the Ld. CIT(E ) has dismissed his application for approval u/s 12(A)(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act only on this ground that the assessee did not submit any response though he received the notice available in the e-portal of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee has been given an opportunity to place his case before the Ld. CIT(E ) as the assessee is a charitable trust entitled to get approval u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and he has already filed form No. 10AB with his application.

4.

The Ld. D.R supports the impugned order.

5.

Going over the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), it appears to us the assessee filed an application for approval u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act in form no. 10AB. A clarification was sought but there was no response from the side of the assessee. The assessee has submitted before us that he did not receive any notices or order for a registration issued by the CIT(E ) and he has been given an opportunity. Considering the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as going over the facts of the case, we are inclined to afford an opportunity to the assessee to place his case before the Ld. CIT(E ). Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E ) is hereby set aside and the Ld. CIT(E ) is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 17th January, 2025

More judgments on Section 12(1)(ac)(iii)

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →