Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Surat Sewa Foundation, filed applications for registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) rejected these applications via separate orders. The assessee contended that only one notice was issued and the applications were rejected without considering the merits and submissions.
Held
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The CIT(E) issued only one notice in both cases and proceeded to decide the appeals based on available records without considering the assessee's submission.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of applications for registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G(5) by the CIT(E) was in violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
12A, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: These two appeals emanate from the separate orders dated 18.10.2024 and 17.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad rejecting applications filed for registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). Since the assessee is same and issues are related, with consent of both parties, these appeals are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. It is therefore prayed that the CIT(Exemption) should be directed that order passed u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may please be cancelled and registration may be granted or matter may be set aside to the file of CIT(E) with appropriate direction. 3.Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
Grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee in are as under:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in rejecting assessee’s application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and circumstances of tee case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in not granting permanent registration to the assessee trust by rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB.
3. It is therefore prayed that order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) rejecting application of assessee may please be quashed.
4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that in the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act. In ITA No. 1286/SRT/2024, the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act was rejected by the CIT(E). The ld. Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that both cases are similar to appellant’s own case in ITA Nos. 464 & 735/SRT/2024, dated 31.12.2024. He submitted that in both cases the orders of CIT(E) were set aside and remitted back to the file of CIT(E) because proper opportunity of hearing was not given by the CIT(E). He submitted that in these two cases also, one notice each was issued and the applications were rejected without considering merits of the case and submission of the assessee. He submitted that the appellant is ready with all to1287/SRT/2024 Shree Sewa Foundation the details to satisfy the query of the CIT(E) in respect of the application for registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. He, therefore, requested that another opportunity may be given in the interest of justice and the matter may be set aside to the file of CIT(E).
On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submitted that the Bench may decide the applications, as it thinks fit.
We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the CIT(E) has issued only one notice on 13.09.2024 and 27.09.2024 respectively and proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of the details available on record. The ld. AR submitted that all details are available with the appellant and one more opportunity may be granted to the appellant to plead its case on merit. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that the principles of natural justice have not been adhered to the instant case. It is settled law that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to present his case. Therefore, without delving much into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of CIT(E) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish its submission and relevant details /