SOCIETY FOR COMMUNITY REHABILITATION,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK
Facts
The assessee, Society for Community Rehabilitation, appealed against the CIT(Exemptions)'s order for AY 2024-25, which rejected their application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the order was non-speaking and did not provide reasons for the rejection, despite all information being provided.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions)'s order was indeed non-speaking and that the Act requires detailed reasons for rejecting such applications. Consequently, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for readjudication, with a direction to pass a speaking order after considering all available materials and potentially calling for further details.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application for 80G registration through a non-speaking order without furnishing detailed reasons.
Sections Cited
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
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.33/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25 Society Society for for Community Community Vs. CIT(Exemptions), CIT(Exemptions), Rehabilitation, At Rehabilitation, At-Anjipeta, PO: Hyderabad IsCo, PS/Dist: Rayagada IsCo, PS/Dist: Rayagada PAN/GIR No. No.ABGAS 3168 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Assessee by Prakash 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 appeal This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the against the order of the ld CIT(Exemptions), CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad Hyd dated 22..11.2024 in Application No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024 CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024-25/12AA/11481 for the assessment year essment year 2024-25 rejecting the application for registration u/s. 80 G rejecting the application for registration u/s. 80 G of the Act. of the Act.
S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Singhbabu, ld AR d ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumat Dubey, Saroj Kumat Dubey, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA No.33/CTK /2025 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 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.
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.33/CTK /2025 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 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) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 2. The Respondent: Society for Community Rehabilitation, At-Anjipeta, PO: IsCo, PS/Dist: Rayagada 2. Respondent: Ld CIT(E), Hyderabad 3. DR, ITAT, 4. Guard file. //True Copy//
By order Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 3 | 4
ITA No.33/CTK /2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25
P a g e 4 | 4
