Loading judgment…
Facts
The applicant-appellant filed applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. These applications were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) primarily due to the applications being incomplete and the applicant failing to provide required details and appear for hearings. The assessee filed four appeals instead of two, which was later clarified.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with the directions and appear before the Ld. CIT(E). However, considering the appellant claims to be a Samiti and to adjudicate the matter on merits, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the applicant.
Key Issues
Whether the applications for registration and approval should be rejected due to non-compliance and non-appearance, or if another opportunity should be granted to the applicant for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
On 25th May, 2024, by way of two online applications uploaded in Form No. 10AB, the applicant-appellant herein applied to Ld. CIT(E) seeking its registration u/s 12AB & sub clause (iii) of clause (v) of section 80G of Income Tax Act.
Two impugned orders dated 04.11.2024 disposed off of the above said two applicants by way of their rejection. that the application was incomplete and that applicant had failed to prove genuineness of activities, despite amble opportunities granted to the said institution-Samiti.
The other application u/s 80G was rejected on the ground that without registration of the institution-Samiti u/s 12AB, no approval under the said provision could be granted.
That is how, the applicant is before this Appellate Tribunal.
As noticed above, only two impugned orders were passed. But, we see that appellant has come up with four appeals, instead of only two.
When inquired on this aspect, Ld. AR for the appellant admits that only two appeals were required to be filed. However, he adds that vide impugned orders, Ld. CIT(E) also cancelled the provisional registration already existing in favour of the appellant, u/s 12A of the Act and under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Act, and as such, he thought it proper to challenge said order cancelling the provisional registration/approval, by way of two additional appeals. to be filed so as to challenge each impugned order.
Be that as it may, as regards the impugned orders, ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission that the matter may be remanded to Ld. CIT(E) for decision of two applications afresh. In this regard, Ld. AR submits that there was non-appearance and non- compliance on behalf of the applicant under mistaken belief. He prays that both the applications be restored to their original number for decision afresh.
Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the restoration of two applications before Ld. CIT(E), but, he points out to the factum of non- appearance of the applicant before Ld. CIT(E) and also non-compliance with the directions issued by that office, for effective disposal of two applications.
We find that in para 2 of the impugned order on application u/s 12AB, Ld. CIT(E) has specified as to why the application in Form No. 10AB was incomplete and further that despite various notices the applicant failed to make the deficiency good.
12AB, Ld. CIT(E) has pointed out requisite details demanded from the applicant-Samiti and further that the despite issuance of several notices, the applicant failed to furnish the requisite information/documents/details.
As noticed above, Ld. AR for the appellant admits fault on the part of applicant in non-appearance and non-compliance during proceedings before Ld. CIT(E).
The applicant was required to comply with the directions issued by Ld. CIT(E) from time to time, but it failed to do so. In this situation, Ld.
CIT(E) had no option but to proceed further.
However, keeping in view that the appellant claims itself to be a Samiti, the purpose for which two applications came to be filed under the relevant provisions of law, and that the matter needs to be adjudicated on merits, we deem it a fit case to afford another opportunity to the applicant to appear before Ld. CIT(E) and produce/provide all the requisite documents/details there, as and when desired by the Authority. appropriate to burden the appellant with costs of Rs. 2,000/- (in respect of application u/s 12AB) and Rs. 1,000/- (in respect of application u/s 80G).
Result
As a result, all the four appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the two applications i.e., one section 12AB and other u/s 80G of the Act, are restored to the files of Ld. CIT(E) for decision afresh on merits, after providing another opportunity of being heard to the applicant.
Costs to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
Receipt to be produced before Learned CIT(E) before commencement of the proceedings on remand.
Copy of the common order be placed in the files of connected to 1553/JP/2024.
Appeal files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 12/02/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Kshetriy Janjati Vikas Samiti, Bharatpur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT (Exemption), Jaipur 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 1550 to 1553/JP/2024) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत