SMT.PUTTALINGAMMA PUTTANNAIAH EDUCATION TRUST(R),BAILUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1727/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 November 20173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had summarily disposed of the application without adjudicating upon the evidence. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the matter was restored for readjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act was rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee contended that the rejection was based on incomplete facts and inadequate opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the assessee's application for registration and afforded adequate opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(b)(ii),Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-1, Bengaluru
Hearing: 09.11.2017Pronounced: 17.11.2017

Date of hearing : 09.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:

“1. The Order of the learned Commissioner passed under section 12A(1)(b)(ii) of the Act is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case.

2. The order of cancellation under section 12A(1)(b)(ii) is not in accordance with law and requires to be set-aside on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that the non-satisfaction as to the genuineness of the activities is not a proper ground for rejection of the application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner failed to provide adequate opportunities of hearing at the time of registration of the Trust on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 6. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that CIT(E) has rejected the application for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act without looking to the complete facts, though the assessee has furnished the relevant information before the CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the CIT(E) for readjudication of application for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act.

3.

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(E).

4.

Having carefully examined the orders of the CIT(E) and the material placed on record, we find that the CIT(E) has disposed of the application for registration u/s. 12AA summarily without adjudicating upon the evidence filed by the assessee. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to readjudicate the application for registration u/s. 12AA after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee by passing a reasoned order.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →