Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association, filed an application for registration under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT (Exemption) rejected the application, stating no response was received to a letter dated 11.07.2024, and also noting the application was premature.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(E) erred by not considering the assessee's reply filed on 26.07.2024 and by erroneously assuming the provisional registration was valid beyond 2023-24, making the application not premature.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) rightly rejected the registration application without considering the assessee's reply and on the incorrect premise that the application was premature.
Sections Cited
12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B), 12A(b), 154, 12A(1)(ac)(ii), 12AB(1)(a), 12A(1)(ac)(iv), 12A(1)(ac)(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW
O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(Exemption), under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the application moved for registration of the said Society under section 12AB(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal
1. are as under: - “01. Because the CIT (Exemptions) has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the application moved for Registration under section 12A(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, which rejection is contrary to facts, bad in law, the registration as claimed be granted.
02. Because the CIT(E) has erred on facts and in law in holding that no response had been filed to his letter dated 11.07.2024 which is incorrect, in as much as, response was filed on 26.07.2024 vide letter dated 25.07.2024 as such, rejecting the application without considering the submission is erroneous, misconceived, the order passed be set aside and registration claimed be granted.
A.Y. N.A. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association 03. Because the assessee society being registered under section 12A for last so many years and the provisional registration having been granted as per the new provision of the Act, there was no reason not to grant permanent registration to the said society, the order passed by the CIT(E) be set aside, registration be granted.”
The said appeal is late by 138 days. The condonation petition has been filed in which it was stated that the reasons for the delay in the filing of the appeal was that on receipt of the order of the ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee pursued the same for rectification before the ld. CIT(Exemption), because the order had been passed by the ld. CIT(Exemption) without considering the submission of the assessee that was filed on 25.07.2024, pursuant to the notice issued by him. Therefore, they had uploaded a petition under section 154 on 28.01.2025 along with enclosures, but since there was no response to the same, the assessee was filing this petition before the ITAT. Since the delay was occasioned only on account of the petition under section 154 that was pending before the ld. CIT(Exemption), it was prayed that the delay may be condoned. After duly considering the circumstances cited, the we feel it is a fit case of the condonation of delay and accordingly the delay of 138 is condoned.
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application in Form No.10 AB for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii). The ld. CIT(A) observed that these provisions were applicable in respect of a trust / institution registered under section under section 12AB(1)(a) of the Act for a period of five years and the period of the said registration is due to expire. Since the ld. CIT(Exemption) was of the opinion that the said exemption was prima facie non maintainable, he sought certain clarifications from the assessee. However, he noted that no response was received. He, therefore, rejected the application of the assessee for statistical purposes, without drawing any adverse inference against the assessee and ordered that the provisional registration granted under section 12A(1)(ac)(iv) of the Act in Form 10AC by the CPC for the period 2021-22 to assessment year 2023-24, would remain valid.
A.Y. N.A. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association 4. The assessee is aggrieved by this order of the ld. CIT(Exemption) and has accordingly come in appeal. Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) submitted that the application had been rejected by the ld. CIT(Exemption) on account of a mistaken belief that a reply had not been filed by the assessee and that no prejudice had been caused to the assessee because its provisional registration continued to remain valid. However, it was pointed out, that in fact on 25.07.2024, a reply had been prepared and submitted to the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vide email on 26.06.2024. Thus, the said order had been passed erroneously without considering this reply. Furthermore, it was submitted that it had been pointed out in the said reply, that the provisional registration that was granted to the assessee was only valid up to assessment year 2023-24 and therefore, the decision of the ld. CIT(Exemption) to hold the application as premature and therefore, invalid, was also incorrect. Accordingly, it was prayed that in view of these infirmities in the order of the ld. CIT(Exemption), the order may be quashed or the assessee may be given an opportunity to present its claim for permanent registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii).
Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. DR’) had no objection to the matter being restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(Exemption), in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that the order of the ld. CIT(Exemption) has been passed on the erroneous assumption that the provisional registration of the assessee was valid up to assessment year 2026-27, whereas the assessee has pointed out that the same was only valid up to assessment year 2023-24. In the circumstances, the application cannot be held to be premature. Furthermore, it appears that the ld. CIT(Exemption) had not considered this matter because he had not considered the reply of the assessee that was filed on 26.07.2024. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem