Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (Exemptions) rejected these applications.
Held
The tribunal found that the applications were not decided on merit but rejected for want of prosecution. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the orders and restored the applications for re-adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of registration applications for want of prosecution, without deciding on merit, is justified and if proper service and opportunity of hearing were provided to the assessee.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
The present two appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [in short ‘the CIT (Exemptions)’] dated 04.12.2024 vide which applications of the assessee for grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and u/s 80G sub- section (5) of the Income Tax Act were rejected.
& 471/CHD/2025 A.Y.2025-26 2
With the assistance of ld. DR we have gone through the record carefully. We find that both the applications were not decided on merit, rather rejected for want of prosecution. Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders and restore both the applications to the file of ld. CIT (Exemptions) for re-adjudication after effecting proper service upon the assessee and providing due opportunity of hearing.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 15.07.2025.