LSHVA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(Exemptions) [“CIT(E)”] denying the registration u/s. 12A and 80G(5)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”].

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the fact that though it has furnished all information as sought by the ITO(HQ), but the CIT(E) did not examine the information furnished by the assessee and rejected the application for registration u/s. 12A of the Act. Relying upon the rejection of application u/s. 12A of the Act, the CIT(E) has also denied registration u/s. 80G(5) of the Act.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that assessee has not furnished the complete information as sought by the CIT(E) and in support of his contention, he has invited our attention to the letters written by the ITO for furnishing the details and replies filed by the assessee. It is quite evident from the replies and the letter written by the ITO that assessee has not furnished complete information and in the absence of complete information, it has become difficult for the CIT(E) to adjudicate the request of assessee for registration u/s. 12A and 80G(V) of the Act.

Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities and the documents placed on record in the light of rival submissions, we find that undisputedly the CIT(E) Office has sought certain information from the assessee and the assessee has furnished the information in part and the remaining information was not furnished by the assessee in time and the CIT(E) had rejected the request for registration u/s. 12A of the Act for want of complete information. Now the assessee undertakes to furnish the remaining information to the CIT(E) in case the matter is restored to CIT(E).