Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज माथन, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री रमित कोचर, लेखा सदस्य एवं BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ Year: N.A M/s. Vaels RB Education Trust, The Commissioner of Income No.521/2, Anna Salai, Tax (Exemption), Nandanam, Vs. Chennai – Tamil Nadu Chennai – 600 035. [PAN: AACTV 9394G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.03.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai rejecting the application for registration u/s.12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2 -: 2. Mr. Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee had filed an online application of Form No.10A for registration u/s.12AA on 06.02.2019. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had sought for clarification vide an email dated 03.06.2019 asking the assessee to provide the clarification by 19.06.2019. The assessee had furnished part of the clarifications. Another email has been sent by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) on 22.08.2019. The assessee admittedly lost track of the said requirements. It was a submission that consequently the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had rejected the assessee’s application for registration u/s.12AA. It was a prayer that the assessee may be granted another opportunity to substantiate all the details called for by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). It was a prayer that the assessee may be granted another opportunity before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai.
3 -: 4. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objections. It was a submission by the learned Departmental Representative that the assessee ought to have been more vigilant in respect of its application.
We have considered the submissions and perused the materials available on record.
A perusal of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) shows that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has rejected the same in the absence of the details called for and a reminder sent from his office. The assessee has also admitted to its latches. However, considering the prayer of the assessee and in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be given another opportunity to substantiate its claim before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). In the circumstances, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejecting the application for registration u/s.12AA is set aside and the issue of the registration u/s.12AA is restored to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
4 -: (Exemption) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its claim
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st April, 2020 in Chennai.