KRUSHI SAMPARK,BARO V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION CUTTACK

ITA 21/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Krushi Sampark, an appellant, contesting the rejection of their application for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad. The primary contention was the issuance of a non-speaking order by the CIT(E), which did not provide specific reasons for the rejection, making it difficult for the assessee to understand the grounds of rejection. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not adhered to the statutory requirement of providing detailed reasons for rejection and thus restored the matter for a detailed examination and a reasoned order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40725 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Laws Referred To: Section 80G, Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAROJ KUMAR DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: PER BENCH; S PRAKASH KUMAR JENA; SANJAY KR. BEHURA; ANANTA NARAYAN SINGHBABU; ADVS
• Section: 12; 80G

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL KRUSHI SAMPARK BARO, PS: N KENDRAPARA PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Assessee by Per Bench Both the separate orders 122.11.2024 in Applic No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024 rejecting the application for registration u/s. 80 G IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.20 & 21/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24 AMPARK, AT/PO: NIKIRAI, DIST: Vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad No.AAETK 4523 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, Advs Revenue by : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT Date of Hearing : 29/01/20 Date of Pronouncement : 29/01/20 O R D E R Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed of the ld CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad dated in Application No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024-25/12AA/11 No.CIT(Exp), Hyd/2024-25/12AA/11427 for the assessment year rejecting the application for registration u/s. 80 G 12AB of the Act. P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CIT(Exemptions), Respondent) Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR 2025 025 are directed against the dated 11.12.2024 & 25/12AA/11697 & and essment year 2023-24 of the Act. ITA Nos.20 & 21/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24 P a g e 2 | 4 2. S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumat Dubey, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 3. Ld AR of the assessee drew our attention to para 3 of both the orders of ld CIT(E). It was submitted that all the information sought by the ld CIT(E) had been provided. It was the further submission that a non- speaking order has been passed whereby the assessee is unable to identify the reasons as to why the exemption has not been granted. It was the prayer that the ld CIT(E) may be directed to give the reasons for rejection of the registration of the Act. It was the submission that a perusal of the order of ld CIT(E) would show that the order rejecting the registration u/s 12 AB and 80 G is deemed to have been passed within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by CIT (A) and six months have been crossed admittedly before rejecting registration u/s 12 AB and 80 G of the Act. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(E) might have recorded the reasons in his order sheet and there is no deeming provisions. He submission that he had no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the ld CI(E) for passing a speaking order and reconsideration of the materials available. ITA Nos.20 & 21/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24 P a g e 3 | 4 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(E) shows that the last opportunity was granted for providing the details by the ld CIT(E) towards end of October, 2024 and the order has been passed in November, 2024. A perusal of the para 3 shows that the order of rejection is not a speaking order. The provision of the Act requires that the reasons be given in details while application is being rejected. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld CIT(E) for readjudication. The ld CIT(E) is also at liberty to call for any further details as may be required for adjudicating the issue of registration u/s u/s. 12 AB and 80G of the Act. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/01/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (George Mathan) (Manish Agarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 29/01/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA Nos.20 & 21/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24 P a g e 4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The appellant: KRUSHI SAMPARK, AT/PO: BARO, PS: NIKIRAI, DIST: KENDRAPARA 2. The Respondent: CIT(E), Hyderabad 3. Pr.CIT, 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. //True Copy// "