Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee-trusts filed applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and provisional approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected these applications and cancelled provisional approvals due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary details and documents despite receiving notices.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) decided the matter ex parte without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The principles of natural justice require the affected party to be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for registration and cancelling provisional approval without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HONBLE & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, HONBLE
आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH: These ten appeals emanate from the orders dated 02.09.2024 and 03.09.2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [in short, ‘CIT(E)’], wherein the CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application for registration of trust u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act (in short, ‘the Act’) and also cancelled the provisional approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. In the CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of final registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act and cancelled the provisional approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) granted earlier. With consent of both parties, all appeals are clubbed and heard together and decided by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The case of Suryavanshi Savkul Shali, in ITA No. 1132/SRT/2024 is taken as the “lead case”. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed an application for registration in Form No.10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The assessee-trust had earlier been granted provisional registration. In respect of the application filed by to 1140/SRT/2024 Navsari Bazar & Sangrampura Surati Modh Ganchi Vanik Punch the assessee-trust in Form No.10AB, the assessee-trust was asked by CIT(E) to file details/documents vide notice dated 04.07.2024 and 07.08.2024. The applicant did not file any submission nor sought any adjournment in response to the said notices. In absence of the requisite details, the requirements of Rule 17A(2) of Income-tax Rule, 1962 were not compiled with. Hence, the CIT(E) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT, Ujjain vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat, Civil Appeal No.2492 of 2014 and M/s New Nobel Educational Society, in Civil Appeal No. 3795 of 2014 and observed that the applicant failed to file documentary evidences to enable him to satisfy about (i) genuineness of activities of the trust or institution; (ii) that the activities of trust or institution are in consonance with the objects of the trust or institution and (iii) that other laws material for the purpose of achieving objects are complied with. Hence, the application filed in Form No.10AB was rejected and the provisional registration was also cancelled.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that order passed by the CIT(E) is an ex parte order, as the assessee could not file relevant documents and evidences before the CIT(E). He submitted that only two opportunities were granted within a relatively short span of one month only and due to circumstances beyond control, assessee could not file the necessary details. He argued that principles of natural justice have not been adhered to. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is ready to submit relevant documents to 1140/SRT/2024 Navsari Bazar & Sangrampura Surati Modh Ganchi Vanik Punch and details before the CIT(E) and one more opportunity may be given to assessee to plead its case on merit. He, accordingly, requested that the matter may be remitted to CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue relied on the order of CIT(E). He, however, would have no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of CIT(E).
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the CIT(E) has decided the matter ex parte due to non- compliance by the applicant to the two notices issued by him. There was also no adjournment request by the assessee. The ld. AR has contended that the assessee-trust is ready to submit all the details and evidences needed by the CIT(E). He requested that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to plead its case, which is strong on merits. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to file requisite documents and evidences before the CIT(E) and to plead its case before him. It is a settled law that the principles of natural justice require the affected party to be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(E) and remit the matter to CIT(E) with a direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be more vigilant and diligent