Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Overview

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (6) TMI 864 - ITAT AHMEDABAD


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates