SHREE PATANWADA AUDICHYA SAHASTRA BRAHMAN SEVA SAMAJ ,KALBADEVI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1539/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 July 2024AY 2024-2025Bench: 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 held that the impugned order was passed in a hasty manner without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, which violates the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The appellant trust was granted provisional registration under section 12A of the Act. Subsequently, it filed an application for registration under section 12AB. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application without providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) properly followed the principles of natural justice while rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A,Section 12 AB(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH

Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh
Hearing: 18/06/2024Pronounced: 04/07/2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by learned CIT(Exemptions), Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, wherein learned CIT(Exemptions) has rejected the application of the appellant provisional trust for seeking regular registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.

2 Shree Patanwada Audichya Sahastra Brahman Seva Samaj.

2.

None appeared for the appellant. Heard learned DR and perused the material on record.

3.

It transpires from the perusal of records that the appellant was granted provisional registration u/s. 12 A of the Act by CPC Bengaluru vide order dated 06.04.2022. Appellant filed an application in form 10AB of the Act for seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. CIT(Exemptions) rejected appellant's application on the ground that no proof of the commencement of related activities was provided after issue of provisional registration.

4.

Impugned order shows that the appellant was afforded one opportunity only on 26.12.2023.

5.

According to the grounds taken by the appellant before the Tribunal, it is stated that the impugned order has been passed in a hasty manner without affording any opportunity to the appellant, further with a prayer that the impugned order may be set aside.

6.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant's trust seems to have been granted provisional registration u/s. 12AB of the Act on 06.04.2022. One of the reasons for the rejection of appellant's prayer seems to be not 3 ITA no. 1539/MUM/2024 Shree Patanwada Audichya Sahastra Brahman Seva Samaj. providing the proof of commencement of activities since its provisional registration. Section 12 AB(1) of the Act mandates that before rejecting such an application, reasonable opportunity of hearing has to be given to the applicant.

7.

In the facts, circumstance, nature of the prayer and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter back to the learned CIT(Exemptions) for passing reasoned order afresh which is the soul of the principles of natural justice. Needless to say that learned CIT(Exemptions) shall ensure substantial compliance of the principle of natural justice.

8.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.03.2024 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 04.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →