Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemption) rejected these applications by issuing only two notices, which the assessee contended violated principles of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal held that issuing only two notices without a final show-cause notice or effective opportunity did not meet the threshold of reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the rejection orders were set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) without affording a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard violates principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR
O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders dated 13.11.2024 and 15.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(Exemption)"], rejecting the applications of the assessee for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. Since the facts and issues arising in both appeals are common, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. & 2185/Ahd/2024 Shree Sarvajanik Muktidham Trust Asst. Year :
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal(s) before us: In
1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad rejecting application for registration of the trust u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void ab initio and in violation of principles of natural justice hence being bad in law.
2. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad has erred in rejecting application for registration of the trust u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act,1961. 3. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, the Id. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad has erred in not granting registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the appellant. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal
either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. In ITA No. 2185/Ahd/2024
1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad rejecting application for registration of the trust u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void ab initio and in violation of principles of natural justice hence being bad in law.
2. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad has erred in rejecting application for registration of the trust u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of incorrect reasons/ observations. 2.1 In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, the ld. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad has erred in not granting registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act to the appellant on the basis that the appellant has not provided the requisite details even when the appellant has duly filed all the necessary replies in response to notice issued by Ld. CIT(E).
3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.
3. We have perused the material available on record and examined the orders passed by the CIT(Exemption). It is noted that the assessee filed & 2185/Ahd/2024 Shree Sarvajanik Muktidham Trust Asst. Year : applications in Form No. 10AB for regular registration under section 12AB of the Act and separately for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, issued only two notices in each case before proceeding to reject the applications. In our considered opinion, issuance of merely two notices—without issuing a final show-cause notice or granting effective opportunity—does not meet the threshold of reasonable opportunity of being heard, especially in the case of a small charitable trust. It is a well-settled principle of natural justice that no adverse order should be passed without affording a fair, adequate, and meaningful opportunity to the affected party. The rejection orders passed under section 12AB and under section 80G(5) of the Act are admittedly premised on alleged non- compliance, but no finding has been recorded that the notices were duly served and that the appellant deliberately failed to comply.
3.1. Moreover, the rejection of the application under section 80G(5) is entirely based on the earlier rejection under section 12AB of the Act. Since we are setting aside the order passed under section 12AB, the consequential rejection under section 80G(5) also cannot be sustained and deserves to be reconsidered on its own merits.
3.2. In view of the above discussion and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to set aside both the impugned orders dated 13.11.2024 (u/s.12AB) and 15.11.2024 (u/s.80G(5)) passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad and restore the matters to his file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with any notices issued and to file necessary documents or explanations in support of its applications. & 2185/Ahd/2024 Shree Sarvajanik Muktidham Trust Asst. Year :