Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an e-application for registration u/s 12AB and 80G. The CIT(E) issued notices, but the assessee submitted only partial information and failed to respond to a final notice, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have considered the application on merits, given the substantial information provided earlier, instead of dismissing it on technical grounds. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in dismissing the application for registration on technical grounds without considering it on merits, despite substantial information being provided.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 10AB, 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary
1221/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Dhanush Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemptions) [PAN :AADTD1195L] Ward-1(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assesseee by: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AR Shri M.Narmada, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of 22/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER. MANJUNATHA G., A.M: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders dated 28.09.2024 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [Ld.CIT(E)], Hyderabad, pertaining to A.Y.2024- 25. Since the facts are identical and the issues are common, for the sake of convenience, the appeals filed by the assessee are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed e- application in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The Ld.CIT(E) issued notices dated 27.04.2024 and 22.05.2024 and called upon the assessee to produce the copy of Memorandum of Association / Trust deed for verification and to furnish a detailed reply on the specific information called for in the said notice. In response to the said notices, the assessee has submitted partial information. The Ld.CIT(E) issued one more notice dated 19.09.2024 as a final opportunity and called upon the assessee to submit full information as per the notices issued. Since the assessee did not respond to the notice issued on 19.09.2024, the Ld.CIT(E) dismissed the application filed by the assessee u/s 10AB of the Act for registration of the Trust / Society u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act as infructuous.
Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(E) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the assessee referring to order of the Ld.CIT(E) submitted that the assessee has furnished part information called for by the Ld.CIT(E), however, could not respond to notice dated 19.09.2024 to give further information as called for by the Ld.CIT(E) because the assessee did not receive the notice issued by the Ld.CIT(E). The Ld.CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee as infructuous, without considering the application filed by the assessee on merits, even though the assessee has furnished substantial information, as called for by the Ld.CIT(E). Therefore, he submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the office of the Ld.CIT(E) to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to file relevant evidences in support of its application filed in Form 10AB, seeking registration u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act.
The Ld.CIT-DR on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(E) submitted that when the assessee could not file relevant information called for by the Ld.CIT(E), he has rightly dismissed the application filed by the assessee as infructuous and in the absence of relevant information, the application filed by the assessee cannot be considered as per law.
We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly the assessee has responded to initial notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) on 27.04.2024 and 22.05.2024 and furnished partial information. Although the assessee could not respond to subsequent notice dated 19.09.2024, but explained the reasons for not appearing and according to the assessee, notice issued by the Ld.CIT(E) was not served on the assessee. In our considered view, when the assessee has furnished substantial information in response to earlier notices and also filed relevant particulars in Form No.10AB, in our considered view, the Ld.CIT(E) ought to have considered application filed by the assessee on merits based on the material available on record and also certain information furnished by the assessee. However, in the present case he rejected the application filed by the assessee as infructuous, without considering the application on merits. Further, the learned counsel for the assessee claimed that the assessee is an existing Trust, got registration u/s 12A of the Act under erstwhile provisions of law and also filed application in Form No.10AB seeking permanent registration u/s 10AB and 80G under new regime of registration of Trust. Since the assessee is existing Trust and also is having provisional registration, in our considered view, the application filed by the assessee for permanent registration should have been considered on merits, rather than dismissing on technical grounds. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E) dated 28.09.2024 and restore the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB, seeking registration u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act to the file of the Ld.CIT(E). The assessee is directed to file relevant information to justify its application filed before Ld.CIT(E). The Ld.CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the application filed by the assessee after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd January, 2025.