SHIKSHAN HAKKA MANCH,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE

The captioned appeal at the instance of appellant is directed against the order framed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune dated 26.10.2024 denying grant of registration u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’).

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed application on Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act for grant of regular registration on 21.05.2024. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a notice through ITBA portal on 24.06.2024 calling upon the appellant to file certain information/clarification. The appellant filed the requisite details. However, the ld.CIT(E) issued another notice to the appellant on 15.10.2024 pointing out certain discrepancies (para 4 of the impugned order). There was no compliance from the side of appellant to such notice. In the circumstances, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the appellant, thereby cancelling the provisional registration granted to it.

Aggrieved appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal assailing the impugned order denying grant of registration u/s.12A of the Act.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that infact the appellant sought adjournment for complying to the second notice issued by ld.CIT(E) vide application dated 21.10.2024 which is evident from the ITBA portal, however, the ld.CIT(E) without considering the adjournment request rejected the application for grant of application u/s.12A of the Act. Thus, the ld.CIT(E) has not afforded proper opportunity. It is therefore prayed for remanding the issue to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication.

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ample opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT(E) and the appellant could not avail them, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(E) be upheld.

We have heard both the sides and perused the record placed before us. We find the appellant in response to the first notice issued by the ld. CIT(E) has filed the requisite details. However, when the ld. CIT(E) issued another notice asking the appellant to clarify regarding certain discrepancies found in the above submissions, the appellant failed to comply to the same. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appellant sought adjournment for complying to the second notice issued by ld.CIT(E) and the ld.CIT(E) has not considered the adjournment request and rejected the application for grant of regular registration. Therefore, the appellant should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details to the satisfaction of Ld. CIT(E). Considering the totality of the facts of the case, submissions made by ld. Counsel for the appellant and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, before the ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld. CIT(E) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the appellant are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeals of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.