Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee applied for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-compliance with various notices issued to the assessee. The assessee attributed the non-compliance to the negligence and subsequent resignation of a director.
Held
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient reason explained by the assessee for the non-compliance and agreed to restore the case to the CIT(E) for adjudication afresh, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the registration application under section 12AB by the CIT(E) due to non-compliance was justified, or if the assessee should be granted another opportunity.
Sections Cited
12AB, 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
This appeal relating is filed by assessee against order bearing DIN: ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1075893347(1) dated 30.04.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [“CIT(E)”] by which the assessee’s application for grant of final registration u/s 12AB of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] has been rejected. The assessee has raised the grounds as mentioned in Appeal Memos (Form No. 36).
We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the case record.
At first, we re-produce the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E):
Thus, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application for the reason of non-compliances of notices issued and thereby non-furnishing of details/documents called for by CIT(E). Ld. AR for assessee drew our attention to the following affidavit filed by assessee explaining the reasons of non-compliances before CIT(E):
The Ld. AR for assessee iterated the averments made in above affidavit and submitted that the non-compliances before CIT(E) had occurred due to negligence of Shri Sukanta Das, Director of assessee. He also supported the facts mentioned in affidavit with reference to the documents filed before bench in the shape of Form No. 10AB filed by Shri Sukanta Das and the document downloaded from Ministry of Corporate Affairs showing the date
Page 5 of 7 of appointment and date of resignation of Shri Sukanta Das from directorship of assessee. Ultimately, he requested that the assessee is ready and willing to represent its case for full satisfaction of CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice one more opportunity must be given to assessee and this matter needs to be restored back at the level of CIT(E) for consideration afresh.
Replying to same, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the CIT(E) issued three notices and asked assessee to submit details/documents but the assessee did not furnish required details/documents and it was a failure of assessee. He submitted that the CIT(E) has a limited time to pass order within 6 months and had no option except to reject assessee’s application when the assessee did not file the details/documents for satisfaction of CIT(E). He submitted that the CIT(E)’s order is perfect in the situation and must be upheld.
We have considered rival submissions of both sides and carefully perused the impugned order as well as the documents held in Paper-Book filed. After a careful consideration, we find that there is a sufficient reasoning explained by assessee in above affidavit due to which non- compliances occurred during proceedings set up by CIT(E). Further, the assessee is ready to make full submissions for the satisfaction of CIT(E).
Therefore, in order to grant substantial justice to assessee, we agree to the request made by Ld. AR for assessee and restore this case at the level of CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. Needless to mention that the CIT(E) shall give
Page 6 of 7 necessary opportunity to assessee and the assessee shall avail those opportunities and that the CIT(E) shall pass order judiciously without being influenced by his earlier order in any manner.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 22/12/2025