SWABHIMANI BRAHM SANGATHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:

The learned CIT (Exemptions) has rejected the application for final registration vide order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2023-24/1056209005(1) under Rule 2C/11AA/17A dated 18.09.2023 citing the reason that the appellant failed to furnish the documents required.

The learned CIT (Exemptions) had sent notices calling for various documents on 18.07.2023, 19.08.2023, and 12.09.2023, which were not delivered to the appellant but posted on the website, and therefore, the appellant was not aware of any of the above notices.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify, or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.

When the matter was called for hearing, neither the Authorized Representative for the assessee nor the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was present. The learned Departmental Representative had filed an application seeking adjournment. However, considering the nature of the issue involved and upon perusal of the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal can be disposed of on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua both parties, based on the material available on record and in accordance with law.

We have carefully perused the record including the order passed by the CIT(Exemption) and the grounds raised in the appeal. It is evident that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the assessee’s application for registration under Section 12AB on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with notices calling for requisite documents. The assessee, however, has consistently maintained that no effective service of notices was made and that the notices 6.1. In our opinion, before rejecting an application under Section 12A/12AA, the Commissioner (Exemption) must afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and objectively satisfy himself about the genuineness of the trust's activities and its objects. Denial of registration merely for procedural lapses without granting an effective hearing violates principles of natural justice.

2. In the present case, the manner in which the notices were issued and the subsequent rejection without ensuring effective service indicates that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

3. In view of the above, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad and restore the matter to his file for deciding the application for registration under Section 12AB afresh, after granting due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4. The assessee is also directed to promptly comply with all notices and co-operate with the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 22/04/2025

अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' ) अपील ( / The CIT(E)-Ahmedabad 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.