LITTLE FLOWER CAPUCHIN SERVICE SOCIETY,DHARIWAL, PUNJAB vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 10/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 August 2025Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored both applications to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the applications on their merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Little Flower Capuchin Service Society, appealed against the rejection of its applications for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) rejected these applications because the assessee failed to submit requisite documents/information as requested.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) due to non-submission of documents, without providing adequate opportunity, is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 80G(5)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 700/ASR/2024
ITA No. 10/ASR/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of twin applications seeking registration / approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act vide impugned orders dated 06-12-2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [CIT(E)], the assessee is in further appeal before us. Upon perusal of para 3.2 of order passed denying registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii), it could be seen that the assessee has failed to file requisite documents / information as called for by Ld.

1.

CIT(E). Accordingly, the applications were rejected against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is another opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(E) which has been opposed by Ld. CIT-DR.

2.

Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we accept the prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and both the applications stand restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case forthwith.

3.

Both the applications stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →