Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Managing Committee of Saraswati Sishu Vidya Mandir, appealed against the CIT(Exemptions)'s orders rejecting its applications for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee contended that the rejection orders were non-speaking, failed to provide reasons, and were allegedly passed beyond the statutory six-month period.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s orders of rejection were not speaking orders, lacking detailed reasons as required by the Act. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for re-adjudication, allowing the CIT(E) to request additional details.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the assessee's applications for registration under section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act through non-speaking orders without providing detailed reasons, and if such rejections were valid considering the statutory timelines.
Sections Cited
Section 12 AB, Section 80 G
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
Both the Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed are directed against the separate orders of the ld CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad dated 7.12 dated 7.12.2024 & 11.12.2024 in Applic in Application No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024-25/12AA/11 25/12AA/11835 & and P a g e 1 | 4 & 16/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024-25/12AA/11836 for the assessment year 2022-23 rejecting the application for registration u/s.12 AB and 80 G of the Act.
S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumat Dubey, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.
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 12 AB and 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 12 AB and 80 G 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 P a g e 2 | 4 & 16/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 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 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 u/s. 12 AB and 80G 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.