2021 (10) TMI 916 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - granting registration u/s 12AA denied - whether the assessee is entitled for registration with effect from Assessment Year 2016-17? - HELD THAT - There is no dispute with regard to the fact that originally the assessee had made application seeking registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 20.11.2015. The said application was rejected by the Ld. CIT(Exemption) on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the requisite details, however, the Ld. CIT(Exemption) had given liberty to apply afresh From the order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), it is evident that the liberty was given to the assessee to comply with and furnishing the requisite details. Therefore, in our considered view, under the peculiarity of facts narrated hereinabove, the Ld. CIT(Exemption) should have granted registration w.e.f. Assessment Year 2016-17 as requested by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-17.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-17. The initial application by the assessee trust was rejected due to insufficient details provided. The assessee then reapplied, and registration was granted with effect from Assessment Year 2017-18. However, the assessee sought registration from 2016-17. The main issue was whether the assessee was entitled to registration from Assessment Year 2016-17.

The assessee argued that the rejection was unwarranted, citing a delay in seeking additional information and contending that registration should have been granted from 2016-17. The assessee relied on a decision by the Rajasthan High Court to support their case. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the rejection was justified as the assessee failed to provide necessary details initially, and registration was rightly granted from 2017-18.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the initial rejection was based on incomplete details but the assessee was given an opportunity to reapply. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal found that registration should have been granted from Assessment Year 2016-17 as requested by the assessee. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal ordered registration from 2016-17. The decision was based on the peculiarity of facts and the assessee's compliance with furnishing requisite details.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and ordering registration u/s 12AA from Assessment Year 2016-17. The decision was based on the assessee's compliance with providing necessary details and the peculiarities of the case.