POPET,BARAMUNDA VILLAGE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERHAMPUR
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(E)'s order dated 22.11.2024, which rejected its application for registration under Section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that all required information was provided, but the CIT(E) passed a non-speaking order without providing reasons for the rejection, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was non-speaking and failed to provide detailed reasons for rejecting the registration application, as required by law. With no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh readjudication, allowing the CIT(E) to seek further details for the 12AB registration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) can reject an application for registration under Section 12AB and 80G by passing a non-speaking order without providing detailed reasons, violating statutory requirements.
Sections Cited
80G, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.548/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2024-25 Popet, Plot No.566, Infront Plot No.566, Infront Vs. ITO, ITO, Exemption Exemption Ward, Ward, of of Laxmi Laxmi Mandap, Mandap, Berhampur Baramunda Baramunda village, village, Baramunda Baramunda Colony Colony S.O. S.O. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. No.AABAP 0397 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Assessee by Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, Advs Revenue by : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29/01/20 2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This is an This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld gainst the order of the ld CIT(E), Hyderabad CIT(E), Hyderabad dated 22.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(E) CIT(E)/Hyd/2024- 25/12AA/11661 for the ass for the assessment year 2024-25.
S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, ld ARs appeared for the Singhbabu, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumat Dubey, assessee and Shri Saroj Kumat Dubey, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA No.548/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2024-25
Ld AR of the assessee drew our attention to para 3 of both the orders of ld CIT(E). It was submitted that all the information sought by the ld CIT(E) had been provided. It was the further submission that a non- speaking order has been passed whereby the assessee is unable to identify the reasons as to why the exemption has not been granted. It was the prayer that the ld CIT(E) may be directed to give the reasons for rejection of the registration of the Act. It was the submission that a perusal of the order of ld CIT(E) would show that the order rejecting the registration u/s 80 G is deemed to have been passed within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by CIT (A) and six months have been crossed admittedly before rejecting registration u/s 12AB of the Act.
In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(E) might have recorded the reasons in his order sheet and there is no deeming provisions. He submission that he had no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the ld CI(E) for passing a speaking order and reconsideration of the materials available.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(E) shows that the last opportunity was granted for providing the details by the ld CIT(E) towards end of October, 2024 and the order has been passed in November, 2024. A perusal of the para 3 shows that the order of rejection is not a speaking order. The provision of the Act requires that the reasons be given in details while application is being rejected. This P a g e 2 | 4
ITA No.548/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2024-25
being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld CIT(E) for readjudication. The ld CIT(E) is also at liberty to call for any further details as may be required for adjudicating the issue of registration u/s 12 AB of the Act.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/01/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (George Mathan) (Manish Agarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 29/01/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Popet, Plot No.566, Infront of Laxmi Mandap, Baramunda village, Baramunda Colony S.O. Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: CIT(E), Hyderabad 3. Pr.CIT, 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 3 | 4
ITA No.548/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2024-25
P a g e 4 | 4
