GEDEN JANG GUNCHOE SOCIETY,MUNDGOD vs. CIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1505/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 October 20163 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) disposed of the application stating no one appeared, but did not mention service of hearing notice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for readjudication after affording an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA was denied by the CIT(E). The assessee contended that the CIT(E) disposed of the application without proper opportunity of being heard and without considering all relevant records.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly afforded an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before denying registration under Section 12AA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Hearing: 19.10.2016Pronounced: 21.10.2016

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) [“CIT(E)”], Bangalore dated 24.09.2015 denying registration u/s. 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter called as “the Act”].

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that CIT(E) has disposed of the application for registration u/s. 12A filed by the assessee without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was further contended that though assessee has filed all relevant record in order to justify that assessee is engaged in charitable activities before the AO, but the same were not placed by the AO before the CIT(E) and CIT(E) has not issued any notice of hearing while disposing of the application for registration of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of CIT(E) be set aside and the matter restored to him for readjudication of the application for registration after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has simply placed reliance on the order of CIT(E).

4.

Having carefully examined the order of CIT(E) in the light of rival submissions, we find that CIT(E) has disposed of the application having observed that none appeared on behalf of the assessee, but he has not mentioned in his order as to when the notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. He has summarily dismissed the application for registration, having observed that assessee is not interested in prosecuting its application for registration. Since the CIT(E) has not given any finding with regard to service of notice before adjudicating the application for registration, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be afforded to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(E).

Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to readjudicate the application for registration, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to place all relevant evidence in support of its case.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of October, 2016.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →