Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the cancellation of provisional registration and approval by the CIT(E). The assessee contended they were not given adequate opportunity to be heard due to circumstances beyond their control and sought remittance back to the CIT(E).
Held
The tribunal noted that the assessee's application was rejected due to non-response to notices, without deciding on merits. The tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard and to present all relevant documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) rightly rejected the application for registration and approval due to non-appearance without providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
12AA, 80G(5), 12A(1)(ac)(vi)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY
ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. : The assessee has filed the above two appeals against the respective separate orders of the learned CIT(E), Pune in cancelling the provisional registration and approval u/sec.12AB r.w.s.12A(1)(ac)(vi) and u/sec.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], vide orders both dated 11.03.2024 respectively.
During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that the assessee has not been provided with 2 ITA.Nos.289 & 290/NAG./2024 adequate opportunity of hearing to put forth his case and the documents placed on record were also not properly appreciated by the learned CIT(E) and rejected the application and approval of the assessee society due to non-appearance. He submitted that the assessee society could not appear before the learned CIT(E) due to the circumstances beyond it’s control. He submitted that the assessee-society has got fair chances to get approval and registration, if one more opportunity has been provided to the assessee-society to substantiate it’s case. He submitted that assessee-society is ready to submit all the relevant details as called for by the learned CIT(E) and prayed that the matter in issues may be remitted back to the file of learned CIT(E) in the larger interest of justice.
The Learned DR on the other hand strongly opposed the request of the assessee to remit the issues back to the file of learned CIT(E). He submitted that despite service of notice the assessee is not responded and therefore, the learned CIT(E) has rightly rejected the application for registration and approval under the Act.
We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that it is an admitted 3 ITA.Nos.289 & 290/NAG./2024 fact that the assessee-society has been granted provisional registration and approval by the department. Since the assessee society could not respond to the notice(s) issued by the learned CIT(E), he rejected the application for registration and approval u/secs.12AA and sec.80G(5) of the Act, respectively, without deciding issue(s) on merits. We, therefore, in the larger interest of justice, remit the issue of registration u/sec.12AA and approval u/sec.80G(5) of the Act back to the file of learned CIT(E), for his afresh adjudication as per fact and law, by providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee society is directed to furnish all the documents before the learned CIT(E) to adjudicate the matter in issue without taking adjournment under any pretext. We hold and direct accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.01.2025.