Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed two appeals against the CIT(E)'s orders rejecting its application for registration under Section 12AB and for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee's counsel contended that relevant documents could not be produced before the CIT(E) due to non-receipt of notice, and requested an opportunity to present the case afresh. There was also a delay in filing the appeals, which the Tribunal condoned.
Held
The Tribunal, noting that the assessee did not receive notice, remitted the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order and provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the Assessee's AR undertaking to provide necessary information to the CIT(E) during the proceedings.
Key Issues
Rejection of application for registration under Section 12AB and rejection of application for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G(5)(vi), 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B), 80G(5), 80G(5)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US
These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the rejection of application u/s. 12AB as well as rejection of application u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh vide its order dated 24.01.2024 and 02.02.2024 respectively.
The grounds raised
in reads as under:- i) That on the facts and in law, the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh u/s. 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio. ii) That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(E) erred in not granting the registration u/s. 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act.
3. The grounds raised in reads as under:- i) That on the facts and in law, the order dated 2.02.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh by rejecting application for approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act is bad at law and void ab initio. ii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(E) erred in not granting the approval u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the Act.
4. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 155 days and 146 days respectively in both the appeals in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed. Hence, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute is hereby condoned in both the appeals.
5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that assesse could not produce the relevant information and documents before the Ld. CIT(E), as notice in this regard was not received. He prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assesse to present the case before the Ld. CIT(A). Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR did not have any objection to this proposition.