AATHMAARTHAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BANGALORE

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(E), denying the Registration under section 12AA of the IT Act, (hereinafter called as an “Act”) by raising various grounds.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the assessee to produce the complete details. The CIT(E) had fixed the hearing firstly on 12.07.2016 and the second hearing for 20.07.2017. Though the assessee has requested to file the requisite information but it wants time which was not given by the CIT(E) and CIT(E) has rejected the request vide its order dated 27.07.2016. Page 2 of 2 The learned DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(E).

Having carefully perused the order of the CIT(E), we find that CIT(E) has fixed dates for hearing which is not clear from the order of the CIT(E) as to how much opportunity was afforded to the assessee. Whatever gathered from the order of the CIT(A), we find that he has fixed only few dates for hearing and thereafter he rejected the request for registration. Rather, he has not examined the claim of the assessee in the light of material available before him. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the issue of registration requires fresh adjudication by the CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside his order and restore the matter to his file with a direction to readjudicate the issue afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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