GEDEN JANG GUNCHOE SOCIETY,MUNDGOD vs. CIT, BANGALORE
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
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”].
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.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, has simply placed reliance on the order of CIT(E).
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.
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
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026