Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the IT Act. The CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application and cancelled provisional registration due to non-compliance with a notice, citing the assessee's counsel's hospitalization as the reason for non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT to decide the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT erred in rejecting the registration application without providing adequate opportunity, especially when non-compliance was due to the counsel's hospitalization?
Sections Cited
12AB, 12A(1)(ac), 12A(1)(ac)(vi)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act.
Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act on 06.12.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune through ITBA portal on 23.01.2025 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification. The desired information was furnished by the assessee. On verification of said information furnished by the assessee, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies in the information furnished by the assessee and issued another notice on 23.04.2025. Since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in response to the above notice dated 23.04.2025, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act and also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 01.06.2022 u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not provided proper opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, the impugned order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. It was submitted that the counsel of the assessee was hospitalized and due to this reason could not comply the last notice issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. It was further submitted that if the assessee has not replied to the notice, one more opportunity could have been provided to the assessee since more than one month was available with Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune to decide the application. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune with a direction to provide one more opportunity to furnish the requisite documents/information as desired by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.
Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly the assessee made compliance to the initial notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune but the last notice could not be complied since the counsel of the assessee was hospitalized. It is the sole contention of the assessee that if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee, the assessee is in a position to furnish requisite details as required by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice without going into the merits of the case, we set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a