Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications and cancelled the provisional registration, citing non-response to email notices and lack of sufficient opportunity. The assessee argued that the trustees faced practical difficulties in accessing emails and had provided necessary documents.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not consider the documents filed with the application. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for proper verification of the details and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Exemption) rightly rejected the applications for registration without providing adequate opportunity and considering submitted documents, and whether the matter should be remanded.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 115TD, 12AA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals are filed by the Assessee/Appellant against orders dated 13.11.2024 and 15.11.2024 passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1.1 The Learned CIT(Exemption) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant’s application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by order dtd: 13.11.2024 1.2 The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in cancelling the provisional registration granted to the appellant under section 12AB(1)(c) without providing sufficient and specific opportunity to the appellant to present its case. Therefore, the appellant shall be granted opportunity to produce additional evidences.
& 2137/Ahd/2024 Anjuman Education Trust vs. CIT(E) Page 2 of 5 1.3 The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in treating non-response to email notices as non-compliance when:
(a) The trustees had already demonstrated their compliance by submitting all required documents with Form 10AB (b) The inability to respond to notices was due to practical difficulties in accessing email, not willful non-compliance.
(c) The trust has consistently maintained transparency in its operations.
1.4. The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of non-submission of a note on activities and other unspecified details, without:
(a) Considering the documents already submitted with the Form 10AB application (b) Examining the objects and activities mentioned in the trust deed (c) Verifying the financial statements and other documents on record 1.5 The learned CIT(Exemption) failed to appreciate that mere non- submission of additional information within the short time provided does not justify rejection of registration under section 12AB, especially when provisional registration was already granted earlier.
1.6 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Exemption) erred in directing computation of tax liability under section 115TD without appreciating that said provision is not applicable in case of rejection of application for registration.
It is therefore prayed that the appellant may please granted registration u/s 12AA in the interest of natural justice considering the eccentric facts of the case.
1.1 The Learned CIT(Exemption) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant’s application for registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by order dtd: 15.11.2024 1.2 The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in cancelling the provisional registration granted to the appellant under section 80G without providing sufficient and specific opportunity to the appellant to present its case. Therefore, the appellant shall be granted opportunity to produce additional evidences.
& 2137/Ahd/2024 Anjuman Education Trust vs. CIT(E) Page 3 of 5 1.3 The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in treating non-response to email notices as non-compliance when:
(a) The trustees had already demonstrated their compliance by submitting all required documents with Form 10AB (b) The inability to respond to notices was due to practical difficulties in accessing email, not willful non-compliance.
(c) The trust has consistently maintained transparency in its operations.
1.4. The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of non-submission of a note on activities and other unspecified details, without:
(a) Considering the documents already submitted with the Form 10AB application (b) Examining the objects and activities mentioned in the trust deed (c) Verifying the financial statements and other documents on record 1.5 The learned CIT(Exemption) failed to appreciate that mere non- submission of additional information within the short time provided does not justify rejection of registration under section 80G, especially when provisional registration was already granted earlier.
1.6 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Exemption) erred in directing computation of tax liability under section 115TD without appreciating that said provision is not applicable in case of rejection of application for registration.
It is therefore prayed that the appellant may please granted registration u/s 80G in the interest of natural justice considering the eccentric facts of the case.
The Appellant filed an application in Form 10AB on 30.6.2024 for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith the documents and supporting evidence as required under Rule 17A(2). The CIT(Exemption) issued notices dated 12.08.2024 and 08.10.2024 via email requesting certain details/documents under Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellant could not respond the notices. The CIT(Exemption) vide order dated 13.11.2024 rejected the appellant’s application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act and cancelling & 2137/Ahd/2024 Anjuman Education Trust vs. CIT(E) Page 4 of 5 its provisional registration. On 15.11.2024, the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application under Section 80G of the Act as well.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the trustees being senior citizens with limited familiarity with digital communications, were unable to regularly access and monitor the email account where these notices were sent. Consequently, they became aware of these communications only after considerable delay. Nevertheless, the documents requested in the notices were, in fact, already attached with the original Form 10AB application, as evidenced by the e-filing acknowledgment dated 30.06.2024, which confirms submission of trust deed, audit reports, and other supporting documentation. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back for proper adjudication of the issues, after verifying the documents by the CIT(Exemption).
The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(Exemption).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(Exemption) has not taken into account the documents filed by the appellant along with the Form 10AB application. Thus, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for proper verification of the details filed by the appellant and adjudicate the same as per Income Tax Act in respect of applications under Section 12AB and Section 80G of the Act as well. The appellant/assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.
In the result, both the appeals of the appellant/assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 7th March, 2025.