Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI JASON P.BOAZ
M/s.Vishwa Ganigara Samudaya Trust, No.40/1, 14th Cross, Vyalikaval Extn. Bangalore-560003. … Appellant Vs. Director of Income-tax (Exemption), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by: Shri S.Venkatesan, CA. Respondent by: Shri Jahanab Aktar, CIT (DR). Date of hearing : 30/03/2015. Date of pronouncement: 30/03/2015. O R D E R Per BENCH: These appeals are filed by the assessee against denial of registration u/s 12AA as well as u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] respectively by orders of the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) [DIT(E) for short] dated 30/6/2014.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust which filed an application for registration u/s 12AA and also for registration u/s 80G on 23/12/2013. The DIT(E) issued a letter dated 19/2/2014 calling for some details. Since there was no compliance to such notice, another notice dated 30/4/2014 was issued. Since the assessee did not furnish required details on & 1272/Bang/2014 M/s.Vishwa Ganigara Samudaya Trust. Page 2 of 3 such date, the DIT(E) dismissed the application for non- compliance. Consequently, application for registration u/s 80G was rejected on the ground that registration u/s 12AA was not granted. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a trust crated for charitable purposes and the DIT(E) had not considered the issue on merits. He drew our attention to notification of the Government of Karnataka wherein the caste ‘Ganigara’ was included as a backward community. Thus, according to him, the trust would fall within the exceptions carved out in Explanation 2 to sub-sec.(6) of sec.13 of the Act. Therefore, he prayed that the assessee’s case may be considered on merits. The learned Departmental Representative, however, submitted that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee to present its case but since there was no compliance to the notices issued by the DIT(E), he was constrained to reject the applications.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the DIT(E) had issued two notices within a span of two months to the assessee and the assessee had failed to respond to the same due to which the applications were rejected. However, it is seen that there was no discussion & 1272/Bang/2014 M/s.Vishwa Ganigara Samudaya Trust. Page 3 of 3 on merits of the case in the order. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to recall the orders of the DIT(E) and remand the issue to the file of the DIT(E) for re-consideration after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is also made clear that the assessee should co-operate with the DIT(E) by furnishing all the required documents within the period stipulated by the DIT(E).