CHIDANANDA SHANTI ASHRAM,PURI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 330/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 July 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not pass a speaking order and the reasons for rejection were not explicitly mentioned. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(E) to reconsider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Exemption) rejecting their application for registration under Section 80G of the Act. The Id. AR argued that the CIT(E) did not provide specific reasons for rejection and requested the matter be restored for a fresh decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) has passed a speaking order for the rejection of the registration application under Section 80G of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 17/07/2025Pronounced: 17/07/2025

Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad, dated 19.03.2025 for assessment year 2024- 2025. 2. It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the registration u/s.80G of the Act without the activities of the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate his claim.

3.

In reply, ld CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(E).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the order of the ld. CIT(E) that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee sought for registration u/s.80G of the Act. A further perusal of the 2 impugned order clearly shows that the ld. CIT(E) has not passed a speaking order as the reasons for the rejection of the application of the assessee are not specifically mentioned. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld.CIT(E) to reconsider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/07/2025. (राजेश कुमार) (जाजज माथन) (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ददनाांक Dated 17/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, 6. गार्ज फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रयत //// (

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →