Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shree Shantijin Jamkar Pansovora Trust, filed an application for registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) rejected the application, treating it as non-maintainable without providing adequate opportunity for hearing.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had erred by not granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Sections Cited
12A
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:
This appeal by assessee emanates from the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) in rejecting application for registration of the trust in Form No.10AB u/s 12A of the Act.
Grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in rejecting the application made by the assessee trust without granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.
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.
Shree Shantiji Jamkar Pansovora Trust 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
In the instant appeal, the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act by treating the application as non- maintainable. The ld. Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was not given by the CIT(E). He submitted that in this case, only one notice was issued and the application was rejected without considering merits of the case and submission of the assessee. He submitted that the appellant is ready with all the details to satisfy the query of the CIT(E) in respect of the application for registration u/s 12A 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 14.06.2024 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