Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ
Date of hearing : 09.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
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.”
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.
The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(E).
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.