ROSHNI EDUCATION SOCIETY,GURGAON vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3983/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 December 20184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT's order was unreasoned as the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was not examined on merits. Furthermore, the reports relied upon by the CIT were not confronted to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee society applied for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application based on a report from the ITO(Exemptions) stating that the assessee failed to provide documents to verify the genuineness of its activities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT properly examined the evidence and confronted the adverse reports to the assessee before rejecting the registration application under Section 12AA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI O.P. KANT

Hearing: 17.12.2018Pronounced: 17.12.2018

ORDER PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Exemptions)-Chandigarh dated 24.04.2015 rejecting the application for Registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee filed application for Registration u/s 12AA of the Act in prescribed form. The Ld. CIT(Exemptions) noted in the impugned order that proceedings have been attended before him and assessee furnished copy of Registration, copy of bye laws, copy of aims and objects and books of accounts for the last three years. The report from the ITO(Exemptions), Faridabad was called for. The ITO(Exemptions), Faridabad through Joint Commissioner, Chandigarh sent the report and has not recommended the Registration. The AO stated that Inspector of the Office has visited the premises of the assessee, but assessee failed to provide the documents from which it could be verified that the activities of the society are genuine. The Ld. CIT(Exemptions) accordingly rejected the application.

3.

Assessee has been notified the date of hearing through registered post many times, however, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

4.

We have heard Ld. CIT (DR) and perused the impugned order.

5.

After considering the submissions of the Ld. CIT (DR), we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh. The assessee produced all the documentary evidences before Ld. CIT(Exemptions). However, they have not been examined and discussed on merits in the order. The assessee submitted in the ground of appeal that report of Inspector has not been confronted to the assessee. We find the contention of assessee to be correct because the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) has not mentioned anything in the order, if the report of ITO, JCIT and Inspector have been provided to the assessee for its comments. Unless the documents relied upon by Ld. CIT(Exemptions) have been confronted to the assessee, same cannot be used against the assessee. The impugned order is unreasoned order without discussing merits of the case and without confronting the above reports to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and restore the matter in issue to the file of CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh with direction to re-decide registration matter strictly on merits giving reasons for decision in the order and by confronting the reports of Inspector, ITO and JCIT to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(Exemptions) shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 17/12/2018.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →