HIJALDIHA VIVEKANANDA SEVA SAMITY,BANKURA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 279/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 February 2024Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee-trust's applications for provisional registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and provisional approval under Section 80G(5) were rejected by the CIT(Exemptions) for want of prosecution. The assessee claimed they could not appear due to unavoidable circumstances.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the applications for provisional registration and approval without considering the merits, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

order : February 29, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeals have been preferred by the assessee-trust against the separate orders both dated 23.11.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(E)’].

2.

The assessee in is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(E) for rejection of the assessee’s application for grant of provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), whereas, in ITA 280/Kol/2024, the assessee has assailed the order of the CIT(E) for rejection of the application of the assessee for grant of provisional approval under clause (iii) of 1st Proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act.

3.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the impugned orders of the CIT(E) to submit that the same I.T.A. No.279&280/Kol/2024 Hijaldiha Vivekananda Seva Samity are ex parte order. That the applications of the assessee in both the appeals have been dismissed for want of prosecution. The ld. counsel for the assessee in this respect has submitted that the requisite documents and details have already been furnished by the assessee- trust along with application, however the ld. CIT(E) has failed to examine the same. It has been further submitted that due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the assessee-trust could not mark its presence before the ld. CIT(E) on the date fixed for hearing. The ld. counsel has submitted that the assessee-trust may be given an opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(E).

4.

The ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee.

5.

In our view, the interests of justice will be well-served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned orders of the CIT(E) in both the appeals are set aside and the matters are restored to the file of the CIT(E) for decision afresh. Needless to say that the CIT(E) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. (प�रणाम�व�प, �नधा�रती क� दोन� अपील� को सांि�यक�य उ�दे�य� के �लए �वीकाय� माना जाता है।)

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 →