HYDERABAD NEW CENTURY LIONS CLUB,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., (EXEMPTION) WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 490/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 August 2024AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed submissions and that a fresh opportunity should be given. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application for non-response to notices, but the assessee claimed they had filed submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) correctly rejected the application for registration without considering the assessee's submissions, and if a fresh opportunity for hearing is warranted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

आदेश/ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.

1.

This appeal is filed by M/s. Hyderabad New Century Lions Club, Hyderabad (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exem ption), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(E)”), dated 14.03.2024 for the A.Y. 2023-24.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had applied for registration u/s. s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee contending that the assessee did not responded to the notices issued on 29.10.2023, 8.1.2024 and 8.2.2024.

3.

Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is now in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that they had filed their submissions on 9.1.2024 and 13.2.2024 in response to the notice issued by Ld. CIT(E) dated 8.1.2024 and 8.2.2024 respectively. However, without considering the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected their application for registration u/s. s.80G of the Act. Therefore the Ld. AR requested before the bench to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration of their application for registration u/s. s.80G of the Act.

4.

Per contra, Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the order passed by Ld. CIT(E).

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the page no.18 & 19 and 20 to 24 of the paper book, which contains the submissions made by the assessee on 9.1.2024 and 13.2.2024 in response to the notice issued by Ld. CIT(E) dated 8.1.2024 and 8.2.2024 respectively. With this view of the matter, we are of the view that fresh opportunity should be given to the assessee and, accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th Aug, 2024.

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →