Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act. The CIT rejected the application and cancelled provisional registration, citing discrepancies regarding commencement of activities prior to provisional registration.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and producing documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT was justified in rejecting the registration application without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain discrepancies.
Sections Cited
12AA, 12A(1)(ac), 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, 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 30.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act.
When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing Ld. DR as well as on the basis of material available on record.
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 05.03.2024. 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 09.05.2024 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 that certain discrepancies are there with regard to provisional registration which was obtained under 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) i.e. the activities were commenced prior to obtaining provisional registration. After perusal of reply submitted by assessee in this regard, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was not satisfied with the same and rejected the application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 01.03.2024 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. 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. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly the assessee made compliance to the initial notices issued by the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. It is the sole contention of the assessee that if the reply of the assessee was not satisfactory Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune should have had provided at-least one more opportunity to the assessee to explain his case. 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 direction to decide the application for registration afresh as 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