Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee-trust's applications for registration under section 80G and section 12A of the Income Tax Act were rejected by the CIT(E) for non-furnishing of details. The assessee claimed they were not aware of the proceedings and missed the emails from CIT(E).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not conversant with the proceedings and missed the notices. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for registration by the CIT(E) without giving a proper opportunity to present their case was justified.
Sections Cited
80G, 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth
O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee-trust against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(E)’]. is against the order dated 16/12/2024 rejecting the application of the assessee for registration under clause(iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter & 103/SRT/2025 Shri Gopal Krishna Foundation vs. CIT (E )
2 referred to as “the Act”), whereas is against the order dated 13/11/2024 of the Ld.CIT(E) rejecting the application of the assessee for registration under sub-clause(iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act.
At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that both the applications of the assessee have been rejected by the CIT(E) for non- furnishing of requisite details as were called for by the Ld.CIT(E) through notices of hearing sent on email-id of the assessee. The Ld.Counsel has submitted that the assessee-trust was not conversant with the Income-tax proceedings and the alleged email sent by the Ld.CIT(E) did not come to the notice of the assessee-trust and, therefore, the case of the assessee remained unrepresented before the Ld.CIT(E). The Ld.Counsel has further submitted that the provisional approval/registration under the relevant sections have already been granted and the present applications were for final registration. He has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present its case before the Ld.CIT(E).
The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), however, relied upon the findings of the Ld.CIT(E).
Considering the rival submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the Ld.CIT(E). In view of this, the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(E) are hereby set aside and the matter, in both the appeals, is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(E) for decision afresh. Needless to say, that the Ld.CIT(E) will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and & 103/SRT/2025 Shri Gopal Krishna Foundation vs. CIT (E )
3 thereafter to decide the same in accordance with law. It is also directed that the assessee will take due care of the emails received from the Ld.CIT(E) and will promptly appear and furnish the necessary details as and when called for by the Ld.CIT(E). 6. With the above observations, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27/05/2025.