M/S ST.MARY'S CHURCH ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

O R D E R

Per A. K. Garodia, AM

by the assessee, this is the only grievance of the assessee that the learned CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application for registration made by the assessee under section 12AA of the IT Act. In the course of hearing, it was pointed out by learned AR of the assessee that the assessee trust filed application for registration under section 12A on 24.01.2018 and a letter dated 17.07.2018 was issued by CIT (E) to the assessee calling for certain details / clarifications and the assessee was asked to submit a reply on or before 24.07.2018 and the impugned order has been passed by learned CIT(E) on 30.07.2018. He submitted that on the first page of his order, it is noted by learned CIT(E) that the assessee has filed a reply on 26.07.2018 in which the assessee sought time of 10 days from 26.07.2018 but since the application of the assessee is getting time barred on 31.07.2018, he rejected the assessee’s request for granting adjournment. He submitted that under these facts, it is clear that sufficient opportunity was not provided by learned CIT(E) and hence, matter may be restored back to his file for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned DR supported the order of the CIT(E).

3. We have considered the rival submissions. In view of the facts noted above, we are satisfied that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided by the learned CIT(E) to the assessee and hence, in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(E) and restore the matter back to his file for a fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make no comment on the merit.