Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals concerned the rejection of applications filed by various assessees for registration under Section 12AB or approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessees argued that the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) were non-speaking and lacked specific reasons for rejection.
Held
The Tribunal found the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) to be cryptic and non-speaking, failing to specify any deficiency in the submitted documents or cogent reasons for rejection. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection orders passed by the CIT(E) were non-speaking and lacked proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard, thus warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER
PER BENCH :
These appeals are filed by different assessees mentioned above, feeling aggrieved by different orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(E)”), for the A.Ys. 2024-25 & 2025-26, respectively.
At the outset, we note that all the above captioned appeals pertain to rejection of applications filed by the assessees 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), all the assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Learned Authorised Representatives of the assessees 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 assessees, nor has the assessees been afforded proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. ARs 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 assessees to submit any further evidence, if required.
Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly conceded and he has no 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 assessees, nor has specified any cogent reason for rejection of applications filed by the assessees 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 assessees and allowing the assessees to file any additional documents or evidences in support of their applications.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 3rd June, 2025.