SADANAND BABA PRATHISTAN,UDUPI vs. CIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1488/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 20164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT rejected the applications without considering the assessee's reply and without giving a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the orders were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable institution, applied for registration under Section 12AA and recognition under Section 80G. The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the applications for non-furnishing of details.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT erred in rejecting the applications without considering the assessee's reply and without providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C, C.A

impugned order thereby rejected both the applications of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT (Exemptions), the assessee files appeals before the Tribunal.

3.

The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that in response to the letter dt.24.7.2015 issued by the CIT (Exemptions), the assessee duly filed its reply dt.4.8.2015 which was duly received in the office of the CIT (Exemptions) on 5.8.2015. Thus the learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the Commissioner has passed the impugned order without considering the reply filed by the assessee along with the relevant details. He has pleaded that the after considering the reply filed by the assessee.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that though the assessee has claimed to have filed the reply however the Commissioner has specifically mentioned that in the absence of relevant details, it is not possible to verify the genuineness of the objectives and the activities of the Trust in this case. He has relied upon the orders of the CIT (Exemptions).

5.

Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, we note that the CIT (Exemptions) has rejected the applications of the assessee for want of necessary details as called for vide letter dt.24.7.2015. We further note that in response to the said letter dt.24.7.2015, the assessee filed its reply dt.4.8.2015. On 5.8.2015.

The copy of the reply is placed at page No.8 of the appeal papers. The CIT (Exemptions) has passed the impugned orders without taking into consideration the reply filed by the assessee and further without giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law being violative of principle remanded to the record of the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication after considering the reply filed by the assessee as well as giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on the 13th day of May, 2016.

More judgments on Section 12AA

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →