SHRI KUTCHI DASA OSWAL,DOMBIVLI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.12.2024 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 04.06.2024. 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 13.07.2024 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 16.11.2024. Specifically asking the assessee to clarify that since your provisional registration dated 17.03.2022 issued u/s 12AB r.w. clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act has already been cancelled by order dated 14.05.2024, therefore the assessee is not entitled for registration under the provisions of clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act. The assessee furnished its reply. Not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee in response to notice dated 16.11.2024, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration u/s 12AB 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 compliance was duly made by the assessee and if Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was not satisfied he should have had provided one more opportunity to clarify the position. It was further submitted by Ld. AR that admittedly the earlier application for registration u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2024, however the CBDT came with Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 and extended the last date for applying for registration u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act. CBDT also gave another opportunity to assessees to reapply for registration u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act whose application u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act was already rejected earlier. Ld. AR contended that the assessee was permitted to reapply for registration in the light of above circular and therefore Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was not justified in rejecting the second application filed by the assessee. 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.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper-book filed by the assessee. We find that admittedly the first application was rejected wherein the provisional registration was also cancelled however, we also find that CBDT issued Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 wherein another opportunity was provided to all the assessees to file fresh application for registration u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act, whose application was rejected earlier. Accordingly, we find force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the second application for registration u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act was furnished in the light of CBDT Circular and therefore Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought not to have rejected the second application filed by the assessee.

In view of above discussion and also in the light of CBDT Circular, without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the application for registration afresh as per fact and law after