Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aggrieved by rejection of an application filed in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) vide impugned order dated 07.09.2023, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Upon perusal of para-4 to 6 of impugned order, it could be seen that the application has been rejected in view of the fact that the assessee was having provisional registration and it had filed application under 12(1)(ac)(ii) whereas it ought to have applied under 12(1)(ac)(iii) which is applicable for provisionally registered entity. Accordingly, the application was held to be non-maintainable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal
before us. The registry has noted a delay of 88 days in the appeal, which stand condoned. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
We are of the considered opinion that the application ought not to be rejected on mere technical grounds. The wrong selection of clause may be due to an inadvertent error and the same may be in view of the fact that new regime of registration of trust was brought in place very recently. The applicant ought to have been granted an opportunity to rectify the error. Therefore, we direct Ld. CIT(E) to grant an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistake and thereafter, proceed for disposal of application on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11th June, 2024. (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद4 / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद4 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे3ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 11-06-2024 DS
आदेशकीLितिलिपअ/ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant
" थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु</CIT Chennai. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडAफाईल/GF