Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s. Azakhana E Zainab Charitable Trust, sought registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act after being granted provisional approval under section 12A. The Commissioner rejected the application, observing it was for adopted/modified objects and not regularization of provisional registration.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner rejected the application without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and on a hyper-technical ground, sidelining the provisional certificate. For substantial justice, the case was remanded.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under section 12AB was justified without affording an opportunity of being heard and on hyper-technical grounds.
Sections Cited
12A, 12AB, 12A(1)(ac)(v)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.03.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under Rule 2C or 11AA or 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) for the A.Y. 2024-25.
2 M/s. Azakhana E Zainab Charitable Trust 2. In the instant case, the assessee was granted provisional approval under section 12A of the Act by the CPC Bengaluru therefore the Assessee subsequently by filing an application in form No.10AB sought registration under section 12AB of the Act, which was taken into consideration by the Ld. Commissioner, who by perusing the Form 10AB observed that the Assessee has applied for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(v) i.e. for adopted or undertaken modifications of the objects and not for regularization of the provisional registration and consequently rejected the application filed by the assessee being not maintainable.
We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As it clearly appears from the impugned order that before rejecting the application for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act the Ld. Commissioner, though mentioned in column No.10 of the order, did not afford any opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and rejected the application on hyper technical reason sidelining the provisional certificate granted u/s 12A of the Act. Hence, for the just decision of the case and for the ends of substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, by treating the application filed by the Assessee as valid, ignoring the mentioning of wrong section and by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.
The assessee is also directed to comply with the notice(s) cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential and required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Hence, the case is remanded accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.06.2024.