Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [“the CIT(E)”] denying registration u/s. 12AA and recognition u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] respectively.
Since both these appeals were heard together, these appeals are being disposed of through this consolidated order.
With regard to appeal relating to registration u/s. 12AA of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed all the requisite evidence before the CIT(E), but the CIT(E) did not take cognizance of the same and has denied registration u/s. 12AA of the Act on the ground that requisite details were not furnished with regard to genuineness of the activities of the trust. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the query raised by the ITO(E) and the reply furnished to the ITO(E) for its perusal by the CIT(E). The reply was received in the office of the CIT(E) on 22.07.2016.
Therefore, the CIT(E) without looking to the reply filed by the assessee had denied registration u/s. 12A of the Act. On account of denial of registration u/s. 12A of the Act, the CIT did not grant recognition u/s. 80G(5) of the Act.
The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of CIT(E).
Having carefully examined the order of CIT(E) as well as the documents filed before us, we find that ITO(E) has raised query vide letter dated 15.07.2016 to which the assessee immediately responded vide its reply dated 20.07.2016, which was received in the office of the CIT(E) on 22.02,2016. Though it was addressed to ITO(E), but it was filed in the office of CIT(E). But the CIT(E) has passed the order mentioning therein that the requisite information was not filed before him for adjudicating the issue of grant of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act.
Having carefully examined the details furnished before us, we find that the assessee has filed the requisite details before the CIT(E), but it escaped the attention of the CIT(E) as it was addressed to the ITO(E) in response to his query. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter be examined again by the CIT(E) in the light of details filed by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file to readjudicate the issue afresh for grant of registration u/s. 12A of the Act.
Since we have already set aside the order of CIT(E) denying registration u/s. 12A of the Act, we also set aside the order of CIT(E) not granting the registration u/s. 80G(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of CIT(E) for readjudication of the issue of grant of recognition u/s. 80G(5) of the Act in the light of material on record and the order passed u/s. 12AA of the Act.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of July, 2017.