PERSONALISED LEARNING PLATFORM FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1225/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 April 20165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(Exemption) as the first notice was issued significantly late. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemption) were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed applications for registration under Section 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemption) rejected these applications, citing lack of documentary evidence for the trust's genuineness and the rejection of the 12AA registration.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was granted sufficient opportunity of hearing by the CIT(Exemption) before rejecting the applications for registration under Section 12AA and 80G.

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 ‘B’

Before: SHRI AK GARODIA & SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO

For Appellant: Shri Naginchand Khincha, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT

O R D E R

PER SHRI AK GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

Both these appeals are filed by the assessee which are directed against two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption) Bangalore both dated 31/7/2015 passed by him u/s 12AA and 80G of the Income-tax Act.

2.

Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

3.

The grounds raised

in are as under: (1) The learned CIT(Exemptions) has erred in passing the impugned order in the manner passed by him. The order passed being bad in law, against the principles of natural justice and equity and is liable to be quashed. (2.1)The learned CIT(Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application filed for Registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act, 1961, on the ground that the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence to show the genuineness of the trust. (2.2) The appellant is a genuine trust and has complied totally with the provisions of law to enable itself to get the Registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the rejection of application filed by the appellant on a totally erroneous premise is to be quashed. (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is eligible for the registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act, 1961 and same is to be granted to it. (4) In view of the above and on the other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order passed be quashed and the appellant be granted the registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act, 1961 as applied for.

4. The grounds raised in ITA No.1226/Bang/2015 are as under: (1) The learned CIT(Exemptions) has erred in passing the impugned order in the manner passed by him. The order passed being bad in law, against the principles of natural justice and equity and is liable to be quashed.

(2.1)The learned CIT(Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application filed for Registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act, 1961, on the ground that the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence to show the genuineness of the trust. (2.2) The appellant is a genuine trust and has complied totally with the provisions of law to enable itself to get the Registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the rejection of application filed by the appellant on a totally erroneous premise is to be quashed. (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is eligible for the registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act, 1961 and same is to be granted to it. (4) In view of the above and on the other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order passed be quashed and the appellant be granted the registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act, 1961 as applied for.

5.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the learned A R of the assessee that in the order passed by learned CIT(Exemption) u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act, it can be seen that the application was filed by the assessee before him on 29/1/2015 and the first notice was issued by him on 15/4/2015 asking for some details/verifications and on 5/5/2015, the assessee requested for granting some time and thereafter, the assessee submitted some details on 5/6/2015 and thereafter, the impugned order was passed by CIT(Exemption) on 31/7/2015 because time lime of six months was expiring on this date.

6.

He submitted that as per these facts, it is apparent that adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee since first notice itself was issued after 2/12 months out of total six months available to CIT(Exemption) for disposal of the application of the assessee. Thereafter he submitted that in the impugned order passed by learned CIT(Exemption) u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, it can be seen that this application of the assessee was rejected on this basis that the application for registration u/s 12AA has been rejected and, therefore, he submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, both the matters should be restored back to the file of learned CIT(Exemption) for fresh decision after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

The learned DR, the Revenue supported the orders of the learned CIT(Exemptions).

8.

We have considered the rival submissions and we find force in the submissions of learned AR of the assessee that sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided by the learned CIT(Exemptions) to the assessee because first notice itself was issued after more than 2/12 months after filing of the applications by the assessee. Hence, we feel it proper to set aside both these orders of learned CIT(Exemption) and restore both these matters back to his file for a fresh decision after allowing sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

We order accordingly. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th Apr, 2016. 10.

More judgments on Section 12AA

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →