Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AB and 80G. The CIT(E) rejected the application and cancelled the provisional registration, treating it as a withdrawal due to non-compliance and lack of proper justification. The assessee contended that they were not given adequate opportunity of being heard.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication on the issue of registration under Section 12AB. The assessee was directed to provide proper justification for regularization of provisional registration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration and cancelling provisional registration without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 12A(1)(ac)(iii), 12A, 80G(5)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 227 & 228/JPR/2025 u/s 12AA and 80G of the Act cuke The CIT-Exemption, Gaushala Sewa Samiti Porwal Guest House, Bazar No. 4 Vs. Jaipur. Ramganjmandi, Kota 326 519 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAG 9623 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Tanuj Jain, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 04/06/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 23 /06/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
These are two appeals filed by the assessee against two different orders of the Ld.CIT (Exemption), Jaipur both dated 04-12-2024 with regard to section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals are as under:-
U/s 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961 ‘’1. The impugned order dated 4-12-2024 of the Act is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence, the same may kindly be quashed.
The ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in cancelling / refusing the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The cancelation / refusal of the registration by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly be quashed.’’ U/s 80G of I.T. Act, 1961 ‘’1. The impugned order dated 4-12-2024 of the Act is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence, the same may kindly be quashed.
2. The ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in cancelling / refusing the registration u/s 80G(5)(iii)of the Act. The cancelation / refusal of the registration by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly be quashed.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed application on 30-06-2024 in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under sub- clause (iii) (ac) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applicant was issued a letter/notice dated 08.09.2024 to furnish certain documents/ details to justify its claim by 20-09- 2024 for registration u/s 12A of the Act, but no compliance had been made by the applicant. Thereafter a reminder letter was issued to the applicant vide notice No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2024- 25/1069870282(1) dated 23-10-2024M to submit complete details/ information by 4-11-2024 but the applicant had not made any compliance. However, the ld. CIT(E) afforded one more opportunity vide letter dated 8-11-2024 to submit the details / information before him on or before 14-11-2024. It is noted that in compliance thereof, the applicant had requested for withdrawing the above application through e-filing portal dated 29-11-2024 for registration u/s 12AB stating as under:- …..’’Application for withdrawal of application filed for registration us 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961.’’ It is noted from the order of the ld CIT(E) that in compliance of the notice (s) issued, the assessee had furnished its reply but it was found not tenable. Accordingly, the applicant’s application for registration u/s 12AB applied u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was rejected and treated it as withdrawal by the ld. CIT(E). Further the ld. CIT(E) cancelled the provisional registration of the assessee samiti by observing as under:- 0.4 Further 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfied has to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier registration. Thus, it is clarified that applicant’s provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10-03- 2022 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also lapsed and cancelled.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus the order should be quashed being ex-parte order and against the principles of natural justice. Conclusively, the ld AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee trust may be provided one more opportunity to the contest the case before the ld CIT(E) and restore the appeal to the file of ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication as the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(E)
2.3 Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(E). 2.4 After hearing both parties and perusing the materials available on record, we noticed that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act giving following narration. ‘’03. In compliance to the notice (s) issued, the assessee has furnished its reply, but not found tenable. Accordingly, the applicant’s application for registration u/s 12AB applied u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) is hereby rejected and treated as withdrawal.’’ It is also noticed that the ld.CIT(E) has cancelled the provisional registration of the assessee for the reason that the assessee trust had failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration. Therefore, in these circumstances, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with the direction to decide the issue afresh as to registration u/s 12AB of the Act in accordance with law. The assessee trust is also directed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration before the ld. CIT(E). Hence, in this view of the matter, the appeal of the assessee trust is restored to the file of the ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication by providing one more opportunity of being heard and the assessee is directed to submit the desired documents before the ld. CIT(E) for resolving the issue in question.. 3.1 As regards the appeal filed by the assessee in relation to Section 80G of the Act, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(E) has inadvertently passed the similar order dated 4-12-2024 as passed in the case of 12AB of the Act and the same is not required to repeat it. Since we have restored the appeal of the assessee with regard to the registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication, therefore, the outcome of appeal of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act is consequential in nature. 2.10 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back (supra) to the file of the ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law.
3.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23 /06/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 23/06 /2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Gaushala Sewa Samiti, Kota 2. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- The CIT (E). 3. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 5. xkMZQkbZy@Guard File {ITA No. 227& 228/JPR/2025} vkns'kkuqlkj@By order
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत