POLISETTY SOMASUNDDARAM CHARITIES,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an e- application in Form No.10AB, seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Notice dated 23.11.2022 was issued in respect of proceedings u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) to the address mentioned in the Form 10AB to produce copy of Memorandum of Associaton / Trust Deed for verification and to furnish a detailed reply by 08.12.2022 on the specific information called for in the said notice. As there was no compliance from the assessee to the said notice, the assessee was given final opportunity of being heard on 04.01.2023 to submit the information. However, there was no response from the assessee and the assessee has not filed any information or documentary evidence. Hence, after careful consideration of the application for registration in Form No.10AB, Ld.CIT(E) rejected the application seeking registration u/s 10AB, since, the assessee failed to furnish mandatory information and since the case is to be decided in time bound manner.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemtpion), Hyderabad is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemtpion) is not justified in rejecting the applicaiton filed by applicant in Form No.10AB for Registration u/s 12AB of the Act. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 4. Ground No.1 and 3 are general in nature which do not require specific adjudication.

Ground No.2 is related to rejection of application in Form No.10AB for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(E) is not justified in rejecting the application filed in Form No.10AB for Registration u/s 12AB of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that the reply filed by the assessee on 02.12.2022 is not considered and therefore, pleaded to afford one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(E) to substantiate it’s case.

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities of being heard before the Ld.CIT(E) and to furnish information or documentary evidence. However, since the assessee failed to submit mandatory information, the Ld.CIT(E) is justified in rejecting the applicaton filed in Form No.10AB for registration u/s 12AB. Therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is apparent from the records that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities before the Ld.CIT(E) to furnish the mandatory information for registration u/s 12AB, but the assessee failed to furnish any information or documentary evidence due to some personal inconveniences. However, since the Ld.AR pleaded to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee before the Ld.CIT(E), keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to afford one more opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued by the department and file information with documentary evidence.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.