NANGTEN MENLANG SOCIO BUDDHIST MEDICAL RESEARCH CHARIITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order u/s. 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 27.04.2017.

The assessee has filed an application for registration u/s. 12A of the Act on 25.10.2016 and a letter was issued by the Office of the CIT(Exemptions) on 18.11.2016 to submit the details and clarification on or before 2.3.2017. Whereas the assessee filed certain details on 8.12.2016 and the CIT(E) found they are incomplete and further clarifications are required. Another letter was issued on 2.3.2017 with a direction to comply by 13.3.2017. Since the assessee did not comply with the direction, the CIT(E) considering the material on record was of the opinion that the activities of the trust are not charitable in nature and the assessee was also not interested in prosecuting the case, he therefore passed the order on 27.4.2017 rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12A. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not submit the information in time and has filed information before the CIT(E) on the subsequent date and the CIT(E) has rejected the application for grant of registration u/s. 12A of the Act. The contention of the ld. AR was that the activities are genuine and the assessee has complied with the condition requisite for grant of registration u/s. 12A and prayed for an opportunity before the CIT(E) to substantiate with material evidence of the nature of activities and financial statements as called for by the CIT(E). Contra, the ld. DR supported the order of CIT(E).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only argument envisaged by the ld. AR is with respect to grant of opportunity before the CIT(E) as he has passed an order for non- prosecution by the assessee. We find that the CIT(E) had called for certain details on or before 2.3.2017 and the details furnished by the assessee were found to be incomplete. The CIT(E) granted further time upto 13.3.2017. The assessee could not comply with the direction for various reasons and the ld. AR submitted that another opportunity be granted before the CIT(E) to comply with the directions.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of activities, we are of the view that one more opportunity is to be granted to the assessee before CIT(E) to substantiate its case with material evidence.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.