M/S TUMKUR DISTRICT FARMERS/ MILK PRODUCERS AND EMPLOYEES OF MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GENERAL WELFARE TRUST,TUMKUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2726/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 January 2019AY 2017-184 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored both matters back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. This was due to the finding that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity to be heard before the impugned orders were passed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AA and recognition under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act were rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee claimed that they did not receive adequate opportunity to furnish documents before the order was passed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration and recognition without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The denial of registration under Section 12AA was the basis for denying recognition under Section 80G.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniyan, CA
For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR-I)
Hearing: 02.01.2019Pronounced: 11.01.2019

O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member Both these appeals are filed by the assessee which are directed against two separate orders of ld. CIT(E), Bangalore both dated 22.09.2017 passed by him u/s. 12AA and section 80G of IT Act. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee in are as under. “1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax & 2729/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 4 (Exemption) in denying the registration u/s. 12A of the Act and is violative of principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed.

3. That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) that the appellant has not filed the information and documents in response to the notice issued by the department is perverse as the appellant did not receive any notice at all.

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) ought to have given one more opportunity by issuing a notice. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, modify, amend or otherwise any of the grounds of appeal at the time or during the hearing of the appeal.”

3. The grounds raised

by the assessee in are as under. “1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax(Exemption) in denying the recognition u/s 80G of the Act on the ground that the application for registration u/s. 12A is rejected.

3. That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax(Exemption) that the appellant has not filed the information and documents in response to the notice issued by the department is perverse as the appellant did not receive any notice at all.

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)ought to have given one more opportunity by issuing a notice. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, modify, amend or otherwise any of the grounds of appeal at the time or during the hearing of the appeal.”

4.

First we decide the appeal filed by the assessee in respect of non-granting of registration u/s. 12AA of IT Act. In this regard, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in the very first para of impugned order, it is noted by CIT(E) that letter dated 11.09.2017 was issued by his office calling for certain details / clarifications. He submitted that this letter issued by CIT(E) & 2729/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 4 on 11.09.2017 was received by the assessee on 21.09.2017 and before the assessee could file the required documents, the impugned order was passed by CIT(E) on 22.09.2017. He submitted that under these facts, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(E) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(E).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. In view of the facts discussed above, we feel it proper to restore back the matter to the file of CIT(E) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee because in our considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, adequate opportunity was not provided by CIT (E) to the assessee. In view of this decision, no adjudication or decision is called for on merit of the assessee’s claim for registration u/s. 12AA of IT Act.

6.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

Now we take up the second appeal in respect of non-granting of recognition u/s. 80G of IT Act. In this regard, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that if the issue regarding registration u/s. 12AA is restored back to the file of CIT(E) for fresh decision, then this issue for non-granting of recognition u/s. 80G should also be restored back to his file for fresh decision after deciding the assessee’s request for registration u/s. 12AA of IT Act. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(E).

8.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the impugned order passed by CIT(E), the CIT(E) himself has stated that this is the basis that since the assessee’s application for registration u/s. 12AA of IT Act has been rejected, the assessee’s request for recognition u/s. 80G is also to be rejected. Regarding the assessee’s request for registration u/s. 12AA, we have already restored the matter back to the file of CIT(E) for fresh decision and therefore, on this issue also i.e. recognition u/s. 80G, we set aside the order of CIT(E) and restore this matter also back to the file of CIT(E) for & 2729/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 4 fresh decision after deciding the issue in respect of assessee’s request for registration u/s. 12AA of IT Act.

9.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in respect of recognition u/s. 80G is also allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

In the combined result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 12AA

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →