Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed two orders by the CIT (Exemption) rejecting their applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The appeals had a one-day delay, which was condoned, and the assessee contended the CIT(E)'s orders were incomplete and passed without proper findings or considering all evidence.
Held
The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s orders to be incomplete and "non-est" (non-existent in law). Consequently, both the rejection of Section 12AB registration and Section 80G approval were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication and reconsideration with a speaking order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E)'s incomplete orders rejecting Section 12AB registration and Section 80G approval were sustainable in law, and if the matters required fresh adjudication after considering all evidence.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.373 & 374/Hyd/2025 Chaganam Lalithamma & Vs. Dy.CIT Bhaskar Rao Memorial Circle 5 (1) Trust, Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AACTC8344D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri P Vinod, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 05/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/06/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President These 2 appeals by the assessee are directed against the 2 separate orders dated 7/12/2024 and 11/12/2024 of the learned CIT (Exemption) whereby the application for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act were rejected.
There is a delay of 1 day in filing these two appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit of the assessee.
We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR on condonation of delay of 1 day and perused the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee. The Managing Trustee of the assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit as under:
Accordingly, having considered the reasons explained by the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was having sufficient cause for the delay of one day in filing this appeal and therefore, the same is condoned.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(E) is erroneous both on facts and in law, is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.
2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in disposing of application for registration under section 12AB of the Act without any finding.
3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(E) is erroneous both on facts and in law, is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.
2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in not granting approval u/s.80OG of the Act on the alleged ground that no substantial activities which are charitable in nature are being carried out by the Appellant, and that the same are in violation of the provisions of Section 80G of the Act.
3. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in not mentioning which are the activities carried out by the Appellant are not charitable in nature and thereby erred in passing cryptic order rejecting the application filed under Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s.80G of the Act.
4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
6. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has pointed out that the impugned order dated 7/12/2024 is not a complete order and there is no finding given by the learned CIT (E) in the said order. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that non-grant of registration to the assessee and passing an incomplete order is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
The learned DR has not disputed the fact that there is mistake in the impugned order as the concluding part in the order is missing.
Having considered the rival submission and careful perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned CIT (E) has passed the impugned order as under:
Thus, it is clear that after reproducing the notice issued by the learned CIT (E) to the assessee, there is no finding given in the order which is apparently an incomplete and inconclusive order passed by the CIT(E). Thus, the impugned order without giving the concluding finding is non-est one and liable to be set aside. We order accordingly. Since the learned CIT (E) has not decided the application of the assessee seeking registration u/s 12AB by a proper and valid order, therefore, the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT (E) for re- consideration of the application and deciding the same by a speaking order on the basis of the relevant facts as well as the documents/details filed by the assessee.
In the appeal against the rejection of application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (E) has rejected the application on the ground that no substantial charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee. The learned AR has submitted that this finding of the learned CIT (E) is without considering the relevant documentary evidence and details filed by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the CIT (E) be directed to grant the approval u/s 80G of the Act.
On the other hand, the learned DR has fairly submitted that since the matter regarding registration u/s 12AB has been remanded to the record of the learned CIT (E) for fresh adjudication, therefore, this matter may also be remanded to the record of the CIT (E) for re-consideration of the application along with the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act.
Having considered the rival submission and careful perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned CIT (E) has given the reasons for rejection of the application for approval u/s 80G of the Act in para 3 of the order as under:
Since we have already remanded the matter of registration u/s 12AB of the Act for fresh adjudication after examination of the relevant record, therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIT (E) is also set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (E) for reconsideration of the approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 in accordance with the same terms and directions.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.