JK HOPE & HEALTH FOUNDATION,SRINAGAR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 613/ASR/2024Status: HeardITAT Amritsar03 July 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

Considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, JK Hope & Health Foundation, appealed against the rejection of its application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not clearly state if the rejection was due to the assessee's non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of an application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) by the CIT(E) without affording adequate opportunity or clearly citing non-compliance violates principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(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

JK Hope & Health Foundation CIT (Exemption) बनाम/ C/O Raj Guest House Chandigarh. Kursoo Rajbagh Vs. Srinagar. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No AAFCJ-5227-L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/Appellant by : None ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Jivandeep Singh Kahlon (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 30-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03 -07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of an application seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) vide impugned order dated 05-07-2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [CIT(E)], the assessee is in further appeal before us. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The registry has noted delay of 71 days in the appeal which stand condoned. The Ld. CIT-DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. Upon perusal of para 3.2 of the impugned order, it could not seen that the application has been rejected for want of any compliance from the assessee.

2.

Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the possibility of communication gaps during faceless regime, we deem it fit to afford another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter of registration is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case.

3.

The appeal 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 →