2025 (1) TMI 1168 - AT - Income Tax

Cancellation of provisional registration granted u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) - HELD THAT - In recent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sovo Foundation 2024 (12) TMI 1521 - ITAT PUNE has remanded the matter involving the issue of 12AB registration back to the file of Ld. CIT Exemption to decide the issue afresh since the application was decided ex-parte i.e. for want of prosecution. Accordingly in the instant case also we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT Exemption Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the issue afresh - Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal are partly allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment presents the following core issues:

(a) Whether the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune erred in denying the registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB and canceling the provisional registration previously granted.

(b) Whether the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune erred in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the assessee's request for withdrawal due to an incorrect understanding of the CBDT Circular.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Denial of Registration under Section 12AB

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to the registration of charitable or religious trusts. The denial of registration was based on the genuineness of the activities and compliance with relevant laws. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including the case of Sovo Foundation vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune, where similar issues were remanded for fresh adjudication.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, did not provide the assessee with sufficient opportunity to address discrepancies. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair hearing and the provision of reasonable opportunities for the assessee to present evidence and clarify issues.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, had issued notices for additional information, which the assessee did not fully comply with. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had submitted some evidence, which was not adequately considered.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of natural justice, suggesting that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter was based on the need for a comprehensive review of the evidence and the law.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal balanced the arguments by acknowledging the Revenue's reliance on the Ld. CIT's order while also recognizing the assessee's claim of insufficient opportunity to present its case.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remanded to the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, for a fresh decision, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to provide the necessary documentation and evidence.

Issue (b): Rejection of Approval under Section 80G(5)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act relates to the approval of institutions for donations to be eligible for tax deductions. The rejection was initially based on the assessee's request for withdrawal, which was later claimed to be due to a misunderstanding.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered the withdrawal request as an error based on a misunderstanding and decided that the issue should be reconsidered, especially since the related registration issue was already remanded.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal recognized the assessee's admission of an incorrect understanding of the CBDT Circular, which led to the withdrawal request.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that, given the remand of the registration issue, it was logical and fair to also remit the approval issue for fresh adjudication.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural error by the assessee but focused on ensuring a fair reconsideration of the application.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remanded to the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, for a fresh decision, treating the application as not withdrawn.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "We deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the issue afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee."

Core Principles Established: The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing. It emphasizes the necessity for tax authorities to provide sufficient opportunities for assessees to present their case and clarify discrepancies.

Final Determinations on Each Issue: Both issues were remanded to the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, for fresh adjudication, ensuring that the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present the required evidence and arguments.