KARNATAKA STATE CHAPTER OF INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL & IMAGING ASSOCIATION ,BENGALURU V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

ITA 2590/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Karnataka State Chapter of Indian Radiological & Imaging Association, a charitable organization, appealing against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), which denied their application for recognition under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the lack of opportunity provided to the appellant to present their case and necessary documents, as the notices were sent to outdated contacts. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that they were not given a fair chance to comply with the requirements due to administrative oversights.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32777 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNAINA BHATIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Charitable institution
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2590/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : NA M/s. Karnataka State Chapter of Indian Radiological & Imaging Association, # 378, Upper Palace Orchards, Sadashivnagar, Bengaluru – 560 080. PAN: AABAK0666J Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 12-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(E) dated 15/11/2024 and raised the following grounds: “1. The order of the learned CIT[E] u/s.12AB[1][b] of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 15/11/2024 refusing to grant recognition u/s 12AB of the Act. in so far as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 2590/Bang/2024 2. The learned CIT[E] is not justified in disposing off the Application in Form No.10AD of the Act without allowing sufficient and real opportunity to the appellant to represent the case for renewal of recognition under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[E] is not justified in refusing to grant recognition u/s 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the appellant has not responded and failed to appear before CIT[Exemptions] and submit the necessary details/documents called for under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable organisation and made an application in form 10AB for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. The Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the said application for the reason that the assessee had not submitted the necessary documents / details. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(E) had granted only one opportunity by sending the notice to the email ID of the ex President who has no connection with the assessee for the present. The Ld.AR further submitted that the same mail was sent to the Secretary but unfortunately the Secretary had also failed to look into the email in order to comply with the notice. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee is having all the documents in support of the application filed u/s. 10AB of the Act and requested one more opportunity to produce the documents before the Ld.CIT(E). Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 2590/Bang/2024 4. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had not filed any documents and therefore the Ld.CIT(E) had correctly dismissed the application in form 10AB of the Act. 5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. We have perused the screenshot filed by the assessee in which the notice was issued to the Secretary of the trust and marking a copy to the past President of the trust. Therefore the contention of the assessee that the service of the notice to the past President is of no help to the assessee since the said President was not associated with the assessee trust at present seems to be a reasonable one. We have also seen that admittedly the notice was also issued to the Secretary of the trust and therefore it cannot be said that no notice was issued to the assessee trust before passing the impugned order. But the assessee submitted that the Secretary of the trust also by oversight had not looked into the email in order to submit the documents before the Ld.CIT(E) and undertook to file the various documents in support of the application filed by them. We recorded the submissions made by the Ld.AR. 7. We have also seen that in the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(E) in paragraph 6 had stated that the assessee had submitted all the necessary documents as required for registration u/s. 12A of the Act for which the Ld.AR fairly submits that it is a mistake but actually no such documents / details were filed before the Ld.CIT(E). 8. Considering the above said facts and circumstances and also in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and direct the Ld.CIT(E) to consider the application filed by the assessee after hearing the Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 2590/Bang/2024 assessee and also after considering the various documents to be filed by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 24th March, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "