KRUSHI SAMPARK,BARO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION CUTTACK
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the rejection of their applications for registration under sections 80G and 12AB of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(Exemptions) for AY 2023-24. The assessee contended that the rejection orders were non-speaking, lacked detailed reasons, and were passed after the statutory six-month period.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Exemptions)'s rejection orders were indeed non-speaking and failed to provide detailed reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for readjudication, allowing the CIT(Exemptions) to reconsider the applications and call for any further required details.
Key Issues
Rejection of application for registration under sections 80G and 12AB by CIT(Exemptions) through a non-speaking order.
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
Per Bench
Both the Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed are directed against the separate orders of the ld CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad dated dated 11.12.2024 & 122.11.2024 in Applic in Application No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024-25/12AA/11 25/12AA/11697 & and No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024 No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024-25/12AA/11427 for the assessment year essment year 2023-24 rejecting the application for registration u/s. 80 G rejecting the application for registration u/s. 80 G 12AB of the Act. of the Act.
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA Nos.20 & 21/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24
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 ld CI(E) for passing a speaking order and reconsideration of the materials available.
P a g e 2 | 4
ITA Nos.20 & 21/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24
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.
Sd/- Sd/- (George Mathan) (Manish Agarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 29/01/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)
P a g e 3 | 4
ITA Nos.20 & 21/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant: KRUSHI SAMPARK, AT/PO: BARO, PS: NIKIRAI, DIST: KENDRAPARA 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 4 | 4
