Loading judgment…
Facts
M/s. Prasadam Foundation filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(E) rejecting its applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2025-26.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E)'s orders were cryptic, non-speaking, and did not specify any deficiency or provide an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with directions to grant the assessee a proper hearing and opportunity to furnish additional evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the orders passed by the CIT(E) rejecting Section 12AB registration and Section 80G approval applications were non-speaking and in violation of natural justice by not providing specific reasons or adequate opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH : These two appeals are filed by M/s. Prasadam Foundation (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(E)”) dated 07.12.2024 & 12.12.2024 respectively, for the A.Y. 2025-26.
At the outset, we note that both the appeals pertain to rejection of applications filed by the assessee in Form no.10AB for registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) or for approval u/s.80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) passed the impugned orders rejecting the said applications. Against the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) of the assessee submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) are non- speaking orders. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(E) has not pointed out any specific deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessee, nor has the assessee been afforded proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR prayed before the bench that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld.
CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, after providing due opportunity to the assessee to submit any further evidence, if required.
Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not make any objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. On perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E), we found that the orders are cryptic and non-speaking in nature. The Ld. CIT(E) has not specified any concrete deficiency in the documents or evidences submitted by the assessee, nor has specified any cogent reason for rejection of applications filed by the assessee for registration u/s.12AB of the Act or for approval u/s.80G of the Act.
5.1 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the cases, we are of the considered view that, justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to adjudicate the applications afresh, after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allowing the assessee to file any additional documents or evidences in support of their applications.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.