2019 (3) TMI 536 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s. 80G - CIT(E) s non-speaking orders - CIT(E) granting registration as Religious Trust instead of Charitable Trust - HELD THAT - CIT(E) has not passed a speaking order and did not give well reasoned finding in his orders dated 22.12.2017 passed u/s. 80G(5)(vi) read with Rule 11AA and also in the order dated 26.9.2017 passed u/s. 12AA read with section 12A which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted back the issues involved in both the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the issues in dispute in both the appeals afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. The assessee is directed through this counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) on 25.03.2019 at 10 AM to substantiate his case in both the appeals and did not take any unnecessary adjournment. Since the order has been pronounced in the Open Court, there is no need to send the notice for the hearing before the CIT(E). - Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues:
1. Granting registration as "Religious Trust" instead of "Charitable Trust" under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Exemption u/s. 80G of the Act not granted.
3. Legal validity of the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E).
4. Request to alter, amend, or add fresh grounds of appeal.
5. Praying for exemptions to be granted to the company.
6. Granting registration u/s. 12AA as "Religious Trust" instead of "Charitable Trust."

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Ld. CIT(E)'s order dated 22.12.2017 regarding the registration of the Assessee as a "Religious Trust" instead of a "Charitable Trust" under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. The Assessee contended that the orders were non-speaking and lacked well-reasoned findings. The Tribunal found the orders unsustainable in law due to the lack of a speaking order. Consequently, the orders were set aside, and the issues were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the Assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard.

2. The Assessee also raised concerns about the non-granting of exemption u/s. 80G of the Act. The Tribunal noted the Assessee's argument that the Ld. CIT(E) did not provide well-reasoned findings in the order dated 22.12.2017. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to reevaluate the issue after affording the Assessee a proper hearing and issuing a speaking order.

3. The legal validity of the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) was questioned by the Assessee, alleging that the orders were bad in law and on the facts of the case. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of well-reasoned findings in the Ld. CIT(E)'s orders, leading to the decision to set aside the orders and remit the issues back for a fresh determination in accordance with the law.

4. The Assessee requested the opportunity to alter, amend, or add fresh grounds of appeal at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal did not address this specific request in its judgment.

5. The Assessee prayed for exemptions to be granted to the company, emphasizing the need for a fair and just decision. The Tribunal, recognizing the deficiencies in the Ld. CIT(E)'s orders, set them aside and directed a reevaluation of the issues after providing the Assessee with a proper hearing and a speaking order.

6. In a separate appeal, the issue of granting registration u/s. 12AA as a "Religious Trust" instead of a "Charitable Trust" was raised. The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(E)'s order lacking in rationale and set it aside, directing a fresh determination of the issue with proper reasoning and after providing the Assessee with a fair hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the Assessee for statistical purposes, setting aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remitting the issues back for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →