Loading judgment…
Facts
Both appeals by different assessees were directed against identical orders dated 12.09.2024 by the CIT(E), Chennai. The assessees had filed applications for registration under section 12AB of the Act. The CIT(E) rejected these applications after issuing show-cause notices, which the assessees failed to respond to adequately.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the show-cause notices were only uploaded on the e-portal and not effectively served as hearing notices, leading to a lack of proper opportunity for the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in dismissing the appeal without giving proper opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals by different assessees are directed against different, but, identical orders both dated 12.09.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai.
Since issues raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
First, we shall take up appeal in in the case of Arulmigu Kalinganarthana Venugopalakrishna Anjaneyar Temple for adjudication.
The assessee raised 3 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(E) is justified in dismissing the appeal without giving proper opportunity to the assessee.
5. At the outset, we note that the assessee filed an online application on 31.03.2024 in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. The ld. CIT(E) asked the assessee as to why the said application should not be rejected in view of the reasons mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order. We note that According to the ld. CIT(E), the said notice was served on the assessee and the assessee failed to furnish any details in response to the show-cause notice. Having not proved the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust and other required aspects not furnished by the assessee, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act.
The ld. AR Shri R. Kannan, Advocate submits that the show-cause notice dated 03.09.2024 was only uploaded on the e-portal and there was no effective service of hearing notice. He pleaded that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue its case before the ld. CIT(E). The assessee is ready to file all relevant details in response to the show-cause notice issued by the ld. CIT(E).
The ld. DR Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT opposed the same.
On perusal of para 3.2 and 4 of the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(E) proceeded to reject the application seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act for non-compliance of furnishing details in response to the show-cause notice, thereby, clearly establishes that the assessee has no opportunity before the ld. CIT(E). Taking into consideration the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee shall file all details as required by the ld. CIT(E) for verification, etc. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In this case, the ld. AR submits that the show-cause notice dated 04.09.2024 was only uploaded on the e-portal and there was no effective service of hearing notice. He pleaded that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue its case before the ld. CIT(E). Considering the submissions of the ld. AR, facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee shall file all details as required by the ld. CIT(E) for verification, etc. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.