SHREE KRISHNA PRANAMI SOCIAL WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 74/LKW/2020Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 January 2024Bench: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (Judicial Member), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee subsequently filed an application seeking to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(Exemptions) order rejecting its application for registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act. The rejection was based on alleged non-compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the registration application due to non-compliance with the RTE Act, and whether the assessee should be allowed to withdraw its appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

(A) The present appeal vide has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 27/09/2019 (Order No.ITBA/EXM/S/EXM1/2019-20/1018360508(1) passed by learned CIT (Exemptions) rejecting the assessee’s application for registration u/s 12AA of IT Act. Grounds of appeal are as under:

I.T.A. No.74/Lkw/2020 2

“1. BECAUSE the "CIT(E)" has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA on the ground that the application for registration was made without compliance of other laws which were material for achieving the objects of the "appellant".

2.

BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, "CIT(E)" was not correct in holding that the "appellant" had not complied with the provisions of Right of Children to Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and on that basis in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA of the "Act".

3.

BECAUSE the "appellant" had duly complied with all such mandatory requirements as were applicable to it under the allied act and view to the contrary as has been taken by "CIT(E)" is on a complete mis-interpretation of provisions of 'RTE Act' and misreading of the material and information placed on record.

4.

BECAUSE the "appellant" being in the primitive stage at the relevant point of time was not required to admit any student in terms of section 12(1)(c) of the 'RTE Act' and as such the registration u/s 12AA could not have been denied on the ground of alleged non-compliance of provisions of 'RTE Act.

5.

BECAUSE there had been no instance of non compliance of the provisions of 'RTE Act', consequently the registration u/s 12AA deserved to be granted.

6.

BECAUSE the impugned order has been passed by "CIT(E)" without affording due and effective opportunity of being heard to the "appellant" and as such, the matter deserves to be re- stored to "CIT(E)" for passing the order a-fresh after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the "appellant".

(B) At the very outset, it was noticed that the assessee has submitted an application dated 11/01/2024 seeking to withdraw the present appeal.

I.T.A. No.74/Lkw/2020 3 (C) Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) expressed no objection to withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee. Accordingly, we permit the assessee to withdraw the present appeal.

(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 11/01/2024)

More judgments on Section 12AA

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →