A.G.N. BHAKTI SEVA TRUST,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1690/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 September 20241 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the application was rejected due to an inadvertent mistake by the assessee. Accepting the submissions, the matter of registration was restored back to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its registration and for the CIT(A) to examine the application under the correct clause.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB seeking registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The application was rejected by the CIT(E) as the assessee did not possess the requisite Form 10AC. The assessee submitted that due to an inadvertent error, Clause 12(1)(ac)(iii) was selected instead of 12(1)(ac)(vi).

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the application for registration was justified due to an incorrect clause being selected?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी एबी टी. वक�, �ाियक सद" एवं माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ'वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम)। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ A.G.N Bhakti Seva Trust CIT(Exemption) #1, Antahkarana Gnana Nilayam, Chennai. बनाम/ Papathiyamman Kovil Street, Vs. Kottangal, Adiannamalai Village, Tiruvannamalai-606 604. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAJTA-9878-R (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Abhishek Murali (CA) - Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aggrieved by rejection of an application filed in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) vide impugned order dated 23.04.2024, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Upon perusal of paras-3 & 4 of the impugned order, it could be seen that the application has been rejected in view of the fact that the assessee was not holding requisite Form 10AC and thus, it was not entitled to file the aforesaid application. The assessee did not respond to the hearing notices and accordingly, the application was rejected. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, due to advertent error, wrongly selected Clause 12(1)(ac)(iii) instead of 12(1)(ac)(vi). The Ld. AR also submitted that the submissions made by the assessee, in this regard, were not considered by Ld. CIT(E).

3.

Apparently, the application has been rejected due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee. Accepting the submissions of Ld. AR, we restore the matter of registration back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its registration. The Ld. CIT(A) may examine the application of the assessee under correct clause.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd September, 2024

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →