KALAIKOODAM,ERODE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI

Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Ms.S.Sriniranjani, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee had made an application under Form-10A for registration u/s.12AA of the Act on 06.09.2018. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(E) had called for certain explanations vide letters dated 08.11.2018 & 02.03.2019. The assessee had responded to him vide letters dated 06.12.2018 & 14.03.2019. It was a submission that however, the Ld.CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application for registration u/s.12AA by holding that the assessee’s response in respect of the Ld.CIT(E) letters were incomplete and consequently, in the absence of the details called for, it was not possible to process the application further. It was a submission that the details called for had been produced before the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee may be granted registration u/s.12AA.

In reply, it was submitted by the Ld.DR that the details called for by the Ld.CIT(E) had not been produced in full. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(E) was liable to be upheld. He vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(E).

We have considered the rival submissions.

A perusal of the letters issued by the Ld.CIT(E) as also the replies filed by the assessee shows that the questions that have been raised by the Ld.CIT(E) have been answered by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(E) says that the details provided by the assessee are incomplete. This statement

It may however, be kept in mind that the directions to grant the assessee the registration u/s.12AA would not disentitle the AO to examine the violations u/s.11(5), Sec.13(1)(d), etc., in the case of the regular assessment proceedings.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.