Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
These two appeals of the assessee are directed against the two separate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal both dated 09.02.2024 whereby the application for registration u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) as well as approval u/s 80G(5) were rejected. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal:
ITANo.236/Ind/2024:
ITANo.235 & 236/Ind/2024 Shreedhi Foundation “1. That the ld. CIT (E) Bhopal erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant u/s. Sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A in Form 10AB for the approval u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act in an arbitrary manner.
2. That the Id. CIT (E) Bhopal erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant u/s. Sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A in Form 10AB for the approval u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act by not granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant to submit the details/information thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 3.That the impugned order so passed by Ld. CIT (E), Bhopal is illegal and wrong.
4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are mutually exclusive to each other.” ITANo.237/Ind/2024:
“1. That the Id. CIT (E) Bhopal erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Clause (iii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act in Form 10AB for the approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act in an arbitrary manner.
That the ld. CIT (E) Bhopal erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Clause (iii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act in Form 10AB for the approval u/s. 80G(5) by not granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant to submit the details information thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
3. That the impugned order so passed by Ld. CIT (E), Bhopal is illegal and wrong.
4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are mutually exclusive to each other.”
Page 2 of 5 ITANo.235 & 236/Ind/2024 Shreedhi Foundation 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the CIT(E) has issued three notices as stated in the impugned order.The first notice dated 5.12.2023 was not received by the assessee and therefore, there was no response on behalf of the assessee whereas in response to notice dated 03.01.2024 and 23.01.2024 the assessee filed the application for adjournment of hearing which was not considered by the CIT(E) and rejected the application for registration u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act as well as approval u/s 80G summarily. He has thus, submitted that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) are highly arbitrary and unjustified liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
On the other hand, ld. DR has not raised any serious objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. Out of three notices issued by CIT(E) the assesse responded against two notices dated 03.01.2024 vide application dated 18.01.2024 & notice dated 23.01.2024 vide application dated 31.01.2024. Thus, the assessee sought further time for collection of relevant information and documents to be produced before the CIT(E) however, the CIT(E) has rejected applications of the assesse as under:
Page 3 of 5 ITANo.235 & 236/Ind/2024 Shreedhi Foundation “The assessee has applied for registration under the new provisions of section 80G of the Act and three opportunities were also given to the assessee and various documents were called to process the application and to verify the object and activities of the assessee. In response to the letter, the assessee has not submitted the required documents. Even after providing sufficient opportunities and sufficient time the assessee has submitted only request for adjournment and required documents have not been submitted. Considering the facts of the case, it is found that the application of the assessee cannot be processed due to non-compliances of the assessee, thus, the same is hereby rejected.”
Thus, it is clear that the request of the assessee was not considered by CIT(E) while passing impugned order and thereby, rejected the application summarily. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the impugned orders of the CIT(E) are set aside and the matter are remanded to the record of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11 .09.2024.