Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT, inter alia, on the following grounds: The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred in passing the 1. impugned order in the manner passed by him. The order passed being had in law, against the principles of natural justice and equity and is liable to be quashed. 2.1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application tiled for Registration U/s. 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the ground that the appellant has not furnished documentary evidence to show the genuineness of the Trust. On Page 2 of 3 proper appreciation of facts of the case, the appellant having furnished all the details called for, the conclusion drawn is totally erroneous, contrary to facts and law applicable is to be disregarded . 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in holding that the appellant is not interested in prosecution of the application filed. The Conclusion drawn is on erroneous premise and is to be rejected. 2.3 The appellant is a genuine Trust and has complied totally with the provisions of law to enable itself to get the Registration U/s. I2AA of the 1.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the rejection of application filed by the appellant on a totally erroneous appreciation of facts and the law is to be quashed.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is eligible for the registration U/s. 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 and same is to be granted to it.
4. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order passed be quashed and the appellant be granted the registration U/s. 12AA of the I.T. Act. 1961 as applied for.
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the order of the CIT with the submission that assessee has filed detailed evidences as sought by the CIT and the AO but it was not taken into account by the CIT while disposing of the application for registration under section 12AA of the IT Act. The CIT has rejected the application for registration on the ground that relevant details were not furnished before him whereas the assessee has furnished complete details. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the assessee has filed the paperbook with the submission that the documents comprising of paperbook were filed before the CIT during the course of hearing.
Having carefully examined the order of CIT and the documents placed before us we find that CIT has afforded one opportunity to the assessee to file certain documents and details were filed on 15.09.2017 but it was not complete detail. Instead of affording further opportunity to the assessee, the CIT rejected the application for registration by passing an order on 20.09.2017. Even the CIT did not adjudicate the application on merit. He rather summarily dismissed it. Keeping in view the totality of the fact and circumstances of the Page 3 of 3 case, in the light of the evidence placed before us we are of the view that the CIT has not properly appreciated the evidence filed before him and instead of adjudicating the issue on merit he has summarily disposed off the application. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT and restore the matter to his file with a direction to readjudicate the issue of registration under section 12AA in the light of evidence filed before us and also after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 23rd March, 2018.