Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Mystery of Mothers, filed applications for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act for AY 2023-24, which were rejected by the CIT(Exemptions) through orders dated 26.11.2024. The assessee contended that the rejection orders were non-speaking, failed to provide reasons, and argued about deemed approval as six months had passed since the application.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection orders were not 'speaking orders' and lacked detailed reasons, which is a requirement of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for re-adjudication, granting the CIT(E) liberty to seek further details as necessary for a proper decision on the registration applications.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of registration applications under sections 12AB and 80G without a speaking order and detailed reasons is valid, and whether such applications should be deemed approved if not decided within the statutory timeframe.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G
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 26 dated 26.11.2024 in Application No. tion No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024-25/12AA/11578 and and No.CIT(Exp),
P a g e 1 | 4 Hyd/2024-25/12AA/11574 for the assessment year 2023-24 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 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, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/01/2025.