Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under section 12AB of the IT Act after its earlier provisional registration was cancelled. The CIT rejected the second application, stating the assessee was not entitled as the prior registration was cancelled. The assessee argued that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 allowed reapplication.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 provided an opportunity to reapply. Therefore, the CIT should not have rejected the second application solely based on the prior cancellation.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT was justified in rejecting the second application for registration under section 12AB when a subsequent CBDT circular allowed reapplication for such cases.
Sections Cited
12AB, 12A(1)(ac)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Bethany Tamil Congregation Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Trust, B1-102, Shital Palace Chs. Ltd., Shital Nagar, Thany Nr. Arc Hies Gallery, Mira Road- 401107. PAN : AAETB8742Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri M. E. Joe Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 04.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
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 27.06.2024. 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 24.07.2024 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 21.11.2024. Specifically asking the assessee to clarify that since your provisional registration dated 19.01.2023 issued u/s 12AB r.w. clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act has already been cancelled by order dated 16.03.2024, 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 21.11.2024, 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 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 16.03.2024, 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.
4. 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 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