Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) sought information and fixed hearing dates, but the assessee failed to comply with the notices, leading to the rejection of both applications.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the applications after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80G(5)(iii) due to non-compliance, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.
Sections Cited
Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), Section 80G(5)(iii), Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, : GAUHATI BENCH: GUWAHATI
Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, HON’BLE
ORDER
PER MANOMOHAN DAS, JM
This set of two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the (“CIT(E)” dated 19.12.2024 and dated 13.09.2024 respectively passed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertain to the Assessment Year [AY] 2025-26.
Page 1 of 3 -24 / GTY / 2025 Bodoland Development Foundation-Vs- The ITO, Ward, Mangaldoi AY: 2025-26 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed an application on 27.06.2024 for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and another application for registration under clause (iii) of second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Act respectively. The learned CIT(E) vide notice dated 12.09.2024 sought certain information from the assessee fixing the date for furnishing reply on or before 19.09.2024. Similarly, the ld. CIT(E) vide notice dated 13.08.2024 through ITBA was fixed the date of hearing on 20.08.2024 in respect of the application for registration u/s 80G of the Act. However, the assessee failed to comply with the said notices. The ld. CIT(E) further issued notice to the assessee, but there was no compliance by the assessee. Since, there was no compliance to the notices by the assessee, the ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 19.12.2024 and 1309.2024 respectively rejected both the applications of the assessee.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Heard the representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record.
The Ld. AR prayed for another opportunity to satisfy the ld. CIT(E) so that registration can be obtained as required.
We, in similar matters, allowed several assessees another opportunity to satisfy the ld. CIT(E) for the interest of justice and decide to remand the matters to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the matters of the assessee again. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the ld. CIT(E) dated 19.12.2024 as well as order dated 13.09.2024 and direct the ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the applications of the assessee after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Ld. DR also has no objection in remanding the matters of the assessee to ld. CIT(E)
Page 2 of 3 -24 / GTY / 2025 Bodoland Development Foundation-Vs- The ITO, Ward, Mangaldoi AY: 2025-26 for reconsideration. Thus, we allow both the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes only. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. 8. Order pronounced in the open court on this 06 day of August, 2025.