HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,KHORDA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR
Facts
The Human Development Centre, the assessee, applied for registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2024-25. The CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad, rejected this application on 12.12.2024. The assessee appealed, contending the rejection order was non-speaking, lacked specific reasons for denial, and was passed beyond the statutory six-month period.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the 80G registration was indeed a non-speaking order, failing to provide detailed reasons as required by the Act. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication, granting the CIT(E) the liberty to call for any further necessary details.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E)'s rejection of the assessee's application for 80G registration was valid, specifically regarding the order being non-speaking and allegedly passed beyond the prescribed time limit.
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.34/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25
Human Human Development Development Centra, Centra, Vs. CIT(Exemptions), CIT(Exemptions), At:Retanga, At:Retanga, PO: PO: Panchupali Pa Hyderabad Dist: Khorda PAN/GIR No. No.AAATH 3404 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & 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 This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the against the order of the ld CIT(Exemptions), Hyd CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad dated 12.12.2024 in Application No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024 CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024-25/12AA/13000 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 & Ananta S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta 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.34/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 exemption u/s. 80G of the Act. It was the submission that a perusal of the order of ld CIT(E) would show that the order rejecting the exemption u/s. 80G 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 exemption u/s.80G 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 provisions of the Act P a g e 2 | 4
ITA No.34/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25
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/exemption.
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: Human Development Centre, Khorda
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.34/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25
P a g e 4 | 4
