THE PATH OF JOY FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1746/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 July 2024AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not mention the electronic evidence submitted by the appellant. To ensure justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) to pass a speaking order after considering the evidence and ensuring principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The appellant, a trust, was granted provisional registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. They applied for regular registration but the CIT(Exemptions) rejected their application for not proving the commencement of activities. The appellant claimed to have submitted evidence, including videos, which were not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the regular registration application without considering the evidence of activities submitted by the appellant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH

Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat Kumar
For Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh
Hearing: 25/06/2024Pronounced: 11/07/2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M):

1.

1. 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed by learned CIT(Exemptions), Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, wherein learned CIT(Exemptions) has rejected the application of the appellant/provisional trust, seeking regular registration u/s. 12AB of the IT Act.

2. Perused the material on records and heard learned representatives for both the parties.

The Path of Joy Foundation 3. Perusal of the record shows that the appellant was granted provisional registration u/s. 12AB of the Act by CPC. Appellant filed an application in the prescribed form 10AB for seeking regular registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. Learned CIT(Exemptions) rejected appellant’s application for want of necessary compliance with regard to the proof of commencement of activities of the said trust.

4.

Learned representative for the appellant has submitted that the applicant has been performing various activities and the videos of such activities were also submitted before learned CIT(Exemptions) through electronic medium, however, learned CIT(Exemptions) has not considered the same.

5.

We find that impugned order does not make any mention of aforesaid electronic evidence in the impugned order. In such circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Exemptions) for passing speaking order after taking note of aforestated electronic evidence to ascertain the genuineness of the said activities. Needless to say that learned CIT(Exemptions) shall ensure substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 is set aside. The appeal is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(Exemptions) for disposal in accordance with law. Order pronounced on 11.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →