Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Dayoday Gau Seva, filed appeals against the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption)'s rejection of its applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5). The applications were rejected after only three short hearings, during which the assessee reportedly could not file its replies, leading to a contention that adequate opportunity was not provided.
Held
The Tribunal, upholding the principle of natural justice, remanded both matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who, in turn, must ensure participation and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G without providing sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present its case, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
The captioned two (2) appeals, one relating to registration u/s 12AB and other relating to approval u/s 80G, are filed by assessee against two (2) separate orders bearing DIN: ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/ 1070246909(1) & ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1070247274(1), both dated 11.11.2024 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax
Dayoday Gau Seva (Jeev Baksha) Avamparyavaran Sanurakshan & 862/Ind/2024 (Exemption), Bhopal [“CIT(E)”] by which the assessee’s applications for grant of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G(5) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] have been rejected.
Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the impugned orders and submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has given only three hearings on 25.09.2024, 10.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 within a short span of time and since the assessee could not file any reply, rejected assessee’s applications. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a charitable institution and its purposes/activities shall be frustrated in absence of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given to assessee to make representation before CIT(E) and accordingly these matters must be restored at the file of Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication. Ld. AR asserted that the assessee is ready to make compliances before CIT(E).
Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent these cases before CIT(E) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand both of these matters to the file of CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(E) and do not Page 2 of 3
Dayoday Gau Seva (Jeev Baksha) Avamparyavaran Sanurakshan & 862/Ind/2024 seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court / by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 03/02/2025