TOTAL ENVIRONMENT MUSIC FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 141/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 June 2015AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate time to provide the elaborate details sought by the DIT (Ex). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the DIT (Ex) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act was rejected by the CIT (Exemption). The assessee contended that it was not given sufficient time to furnish the requested details.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity and time by the DIT (Exemption) to furnish the required details for registration under Section 12AA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Appellant: Shri. Vishnu Moorthy, CA

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

In this appeal filed by assessee, it is aggrieved that its application for registration u/s.12AA of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), was rejected by the CIT (Exemption), vide his order dt.12.12.2014, without giving adequate opportunity to substantiate its claim for registration.

Page - 2

02.

Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that assessee was not given sufficient time by the DIT (Ex), to file the details sought by him. As per Ld. AR, notice dt 03.12.2014 of DIT (Ex), in which the details were sought from assessee was served on 08.12.2014 and not on 04.12.2014 as mentioned by the DIT (Ex). Ld. AR submitted that assessee had sought one week’s time for furnishing the information and this was filed on 12.12.2014. As per Ld. AR, ignoring the submissions of assessee, DIT (Ex) had passed the order rejecting its application for registration on 12.12.2014, which was served on the assessee on 15.12.2014. 03. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the order of DIT (Ex).

04.

We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. The sole reason why the DIT (Ex) rejected the application for registration u/s.12AA of the Act, is that the details sought by him through his letter dt. 03.12.2014 was not furnished by the assessee. Contention of the assessee is that the said letter was served only on 08.12.2014. Be that as it may, we find that the order of DIT (Ex) is dated 12.12.2014. Admittedly, the letter sent was dated.03.12.2014 and this hardly gave nine days time to the assessee for furnishing the details required, which was quite elaborate in nature. We are of the opinion that assessee was not given sufficient time for giving the details sought by the DIT (Ex). DIT (Ex), in our opinion, had not given opportunity to the assessee for explaining its case. Ends of justice will be met, in our opinion, if the matter is remitted back to DIT (Ex) for consideration of the application for registration Page - 3

u/s.12AA of the Act, afresh. Assessee shall furnish the information sought by the DIT (Ex) and he shall proceed in accordance with law.

05.

In the result, we set aside the order of CIT (Ex) and remit the file back to the DIT (Ex) for fresh consideration.

06.

Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th day of June, 2015. (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

More judgments on Section 12AA

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →