Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 864 - ITAT AHMEDABADDenial of Registration u/s 12AB and 80G(5) - exparte rejection orders - assessee stated that notices were not issued to the assessee Trust - assessee submitted unconditional apologies of the statement of non-service of notice through email id of the Trust and the Trustee without properly verifying from the official email id filed the Affidavit and pleaded to withdraw the Notarized Affidavit - HELD THAT - It is seen that the assessee Trust was registered on 10.01.2020 with the main object to promote education, medical relief, providing medical treatment to needy persons. The assessee Trust obtained provisional registration u/s. 12AB of the Act from the Ld. CIT(E) on 30.11.2022. It is thereafter the assessee filed application in Form 10AB for final registration on 15.02.2023. As stated in the Notarized Affidavit, the assessee claims that no notices were served upon him. Per contra, the department proved beyond doubt that the first notice was delivered on 11.07.2023 sent at 06 56 26 p.m. and the same delivered to the email address at 06 56 30 p.m. Similarly, second notice sent on 04.08.2023 at 09 35 51 p.m. delivered at 09 35 58 p.m. Thus it is proved the assessee s Affidavit is misleading, though deposed before a Notary Public. Section 277 of the Income Tax Act provides for false statement in verification, etc. and Section 277A of the Act provides for falsification of books of account or document, etc. Similarly Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with furnishing of false information and Section 181 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with false statement on or affirmation to public servant. Thus every assessee who makes a statement before any Authority should be vigilant enough with the above provisions of law and punishment prescribed therein. Since the assessee pleaded to withdraw the above Notarized Affidavit and submitted unconditional apologies before this Tribunal and also provisional registration already granted to the assessee Trust on 10.01.2020. We deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each in the above appeals to be payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund account within a period of two weeks of receipt of this order. However to uphold the Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the exparte rejection orders dated 21.08.2023 and 24.08.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the Registration u/s.12AB and u/s. 80G of the Act by providing one opportunity to the assessee and pass orders strictly under the provisions of law. Needless to say, the assessee should furnish all the required details as prescribed under the Act and Rules for getting the Registration under the Act. Appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of registration u/s 12AB and 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, and the failure to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Issue 1: Rejection of registration u/s 12AB: The Assessee filed an appeal against the rejection of the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. The Grounds of Appeal highlighted that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the application without pointing out specific deficiencies in the show cause notice. The Assessee supported their case with a Notarized Affidavit stating non-receipt of hearing notices, which was later contradicted by evidence presented by the department showing the delivery of notices to the Assessee's email address. The Tribunal found the Assessee's Affidavit misleading and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each in the appeals. However, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the registration u/s 12AB, providing one opportunity to the Assessee to comply with all necessary requirements. Issue 2: Rejection of registration u/s 80G(5): The Assessee also challenged the rejection of the application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Similar to the issue with u/s 12AB, the Assessee claimed non-receipt of notices, which was refuted by evidence provided by the department. The Tribunal, after considering all materials on record, found the Assessee's Affidavit to be misleading and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each in the appeals. The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the registration u/s 80G(5), providing one opportunity to the Assessee to fulfill all necessary requirements as per the Act and Rules. Conclusion: In conclusion, the appeals filed by the Assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal imposed a cost on the Assessee for misleading information in the Affidavit but granted the Assessee another opportunity to seek registration u/s 12AB and u/s 80G(5) under the provisions of law. The decision aimed to uphold the Principle of Natural Justice while ensuring compliance with all necessary details required for registration under the Act and Rules.
|