Loading judgment…
Facts
Vikas Seva Niketan filed an application in Form 10AB for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2025-26. The CIT(E) requested several documents and explanations, but the assessee allegedly did not comply, leading to the rejection of the application without being heard on the merits.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application without deciding the issue on merit and without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to appear and submit all necessary documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under sections 12A/12AB without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without deciding the matter on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), Section 12AB(1)(b), Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 17/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/11/2025 O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Patna [in short, the ld. CIT(E)] dated 24/12/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2025-26. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. That an application in Form 10AB was filed by the appellant for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, read with section 12AB(1)(b).
2. That the proceeding was undergoing and an objection was raised that the dissolution clause is not appearing in the trust deed in case of dissolution, but this was baseless because dissolution clause is appearing in Niyamawali (Rules & Regulation) of the society under Clause 6 (a, b & c). Hence, the objection raised as such is not sustainable (Copy of Niyamawali enclosed).
3. That in course of proceeding a time petition was lodged to adjourn the proceeding on 12th December 2024 and grant a new date on or after 20th December 2024.
4. That thereafter the appellant was waiting for the communication of new date for hearing, no such communication reached to him as yet.
5. That after long gap of time, when personal enquiry on 4th January 2025, it was came to our information that case has already been decided and application was rejected on 24th December 2024.
Vikas Seva Niketan Vs ITO(E) 6. That hence the appellant was not provide proper opportunity to be heard and to produce his reply in the matter.
That more other grounds may be given at the time of hearing.
That now on the grounds mentioned here above the order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (EXM), Patna is unjustified and not lawful, therefore it should kindly be cancelled of non-service of intimation of new date of hearing, the society has not been provided opportunity in proper way, which is unjustified. Hence the rejection order should be cancelled and matter should be restored and society must be allowed to be heard and/or allow the registration on the basis of document attached herewith.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that an application in Form 10AB was filed by the appellant on 29/06/2024 before the ld. CIT(E) for grant of regular registration under sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A read with section 12AB(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The appellant was asked to submit its documents in regard to objects of the assessee-trust and the genuineness of its activities. On examination of the Trust Deed and the documents filed, a letter dated 06/12/2024 was issued to the applicant to file explanation with regard to rent agreement and electricity bill payment and details of bills and vouchers of all expenses, grant and fee received for previous three years and list of charitable activities carried out in last three years with beneficiaries name, address, ID Proof and confirmation. In response to the said letter, no reply was made by the assessee, therefore, the ld. CIT(E) rejection the application for granting regular registration.
Aggrieved by the said order of the learned CIT(E), this appeal has been preferred by the assessee before this Tribunal.
At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no proper opportunity was provided by the ld. CIT(E) to explain its claim, therefore, it is