M/S BHARATIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GADAG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2853/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2018AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT denied registration without ensuring proper service of notice and affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) denied the registration without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner denied registration under Section 12A without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Hearing: 25.04.2018Pronounced: 03.05.2018

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) [“CIT”] passed u/s. 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter called “the Act”] denying registration u/s. 12A of the act.

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee has not received any notice from the CIT and the CIT has disposed of the application for registration u/s. 12A vide his order dated 25.09.2017 without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

Our attention was also invited that the first notice was issued by the CIT on 10.09.2017 and the order was passed on 25.09.2017 without serving the notice of hearing upon the assessee.

4.

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the CIT.

5.

Having carefully examined the order of the CIT, we find that the CIT has issued one notice dated 11.09.2017 asking the assessee to file certain details, but in his order it is not clear whether notice was served upon the assessee and the CIT has rejected the request for registration vide order dated 25.09.2017. Therefore it appears that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to assessee before adjudicating the claim of registration. In the light of these facts, we set aside the order of CIT and restore the matter to CIT’s file with a direction to readjudicate the claim of registration u/s. 12A of the Act, after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Accordingly, the order of CIT is set aside and matter restored to his file.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on this 3rd day of May, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/-

( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 3rd May, 2018.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →