KALINGA INSTITUTE OF MINING ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,ANGUL vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. “ 1. The respondent erred in concluding that the trust misrepresented its asset position. The reconstitution deed accurately reflected the assets at the time of reconstitution, and subsequent disclosures in the Balance Sheet filed with Form 10A were transparent and in compliance with the law.

The respondent misapplied section 12AB(4) by categorising the trust’s activities as non-genuine without substantive evidence. The interest income earned on fixed deposits was disclosed, and its utilisation for charitable purposes is evident from the financial statements.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a trust registered u/s.12AB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E), vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed u/s. 12AB(4) of the Act, cancelled the registration of the assessee, primarily on the ground of non-compliance and non- prosecution of proceedings initiated under the said section.

Aggrieved with the cancellation order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the cancellation order has been passed without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee had not received the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) during the cancellation proceedings. As such, the assessee could not appear or file requisite evidence/explanation in support of its continued eligibility u/s.12AB of the Act. It was also submitted that in the interest of natural justice, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(E), file necessary supporting documents, and present its case on merits.

Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the request for remand and submitted that sufficient opportunities had already been provided by the Ld. CIT(E) to the assessee, which were not availed.

We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. From the impugned order of Ld. CIT(E), we found that the Ld. CIT(E) has cancelled the registration of the assessee granted u/s.12AB of the Act due to non-prosecution. It is also contended by the Ld. AR that, the notices of the Ld. CIT(E) was not received by the assessee. As the case may be, we found that the case of the assessee could not be decided on merits. In light of the above, and bearing in mind the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to be heard and to file necessary documentary support for continuation of its registration u/s. 12AB. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, after granting due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and not seek unnecessary adjournments.