Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable society, was granted provisional registration for AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. They applied for permanent registration on 21/09/2023, which was within the due date. However, the CIT(E) rejected the application, stating it was not filed within the prescribed time and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh examination.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for permanent registration without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee and whether the application was filed within the prescribed time.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iv)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, HON’BLE& SHRI B.R. BASKARAN
PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 13/01/2024 passed by ld. CIT(Exemptions),Mumbairejecting the application filed by the assessee seeking permanent registration u/s. 12A of the Act.
The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a charitable society established on 01/02/2008 with the objective to carry out charitable activities in education, medical relief, relief to the poor as well as advancement of objects of general public utility. It was granted provisional registration from Assessment Year 2022-23 to 2024-25. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee filed application seeking permanent registration in Form 10AB on 21/09/2023, which was well within the due date. However, the Ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application holding that the application has not been filed within the time prescribed in sec.12A(1)(ac)(iv) of the Act. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) did not afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain these factual aspects. Accordingly, he submitted that assessee may be provided with an opportunity to present the facts properly before Ld. CIT(E).
We have heard ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present the facts properly before Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(E) and restore all the issues contested in this appeal to his file for examining them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.