Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee applied for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5) of the IT Act. The CIT (Exemption), Pune, rejected both applications and cancelled provisional registration, alleging non-compliance with information requests after issuing two notices, allowing only 7 days for the second response.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT (Exemption), Pune, noting that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing, particularly given the short 7-day period to respond to the second notice. Both the registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5) were remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for de novo adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee one more opportunity to submit the necessary documents.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5) was justified when the assessee claimed insufficient opportunity to submit information.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G(5), 10AB, 12AB, 12A(1)(ac)(vi)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 13.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act filed on 27.03.2024 and denying the application for approval & 2310/PUN/2024 in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act filed on 27.03.2024. : 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption has erred on facts as well as in law in cancelling provisional Registration granted and rejecting to grant permanent Registration. Appellant prays to restore provisional Registration and Grant Permanent Registration.
1. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption has erred in not granting opportunity as per Adjournment request and passed the Order without communicating rejection. Appellant prays for appropriate relief of adjournment.
3. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption has rejected Registration without sufficient reasons for by observing in Para 4(i)(ii)(iii) of the Order rejecting Registration.
4. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, take additional grounds, submit additional evidence, and/or withdraw the ground/s, during appellate Proceedings.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12(1)(ac) of the IT Act on 27.03.2024. 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 20.05.2024 requesting the assessee to upload & 2310/PUN/2024 certain information/clarification. The desired information was furnished by the assessee. However, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies in the explanation filed by the assessee and sought some further information & issued another notice on 02.09.2024. Since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in response to the said notice dated 02.09.2024, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 16.11.2021 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.
4. 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, & therefore the order is not justified. It was submitted that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have provided one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee so the assessee can furnish the required information, but Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune failed to do so, accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to provide one opportunity to submit the documents in support of application for registration.
& 2310/PUN/2024 A paper-book consisting various relevant documents is also furnished before the bench.
Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue placed heavy reliance on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities 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 notice issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, but the subsequent notice could not be answered by him. It is the sole contention of Ld. AR that if the assessee has not furnished requisite information/documents on the requisite date, one further opportunity should have been provided to him by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, since only 7 days time was allowed to respond against the notice. We find some force in the arguments of Ld. AR & therefore considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice and without going into the 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 give one more opportunity to the assessee to file the requisite details and decide the application for registration afresh as & 2310/PUN/2024 per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and produce requisite documents/information in support of the application for registration without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.2310/PUN/2024 :
8. The instant appeal is against the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune denying grant of approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act. Since we have remanded the issue of grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) to the file of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune for de novo adjudication, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit the issue of grant of approval u/s 80G(5) as well to the file of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune being consequential, for de novo adjudication.