POPET,BARAMUNDA VILLAGE V. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERHAMPUR

ITA 548/CTK/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(E), Hyderabad, which rejected the registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2024-25. The assessee, represented by S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura, and Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, argued that all required information was provided and criticized the order as non-speaking, lacking clear reasons for rejection. The CIT DR, Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, did not object to the restoration of the issue for reconsideration. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not provided a detailed reasoning for the rejection, which is mandatory under the Act, and thus restored the matter for a comprehensive review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473624 (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: 2024-2025
• Laws Referred To: 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

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Popet, Plot No.566, Infront of Laxmi Mandap, Baramunda village, Baramunda Colony S.O. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Assessee by Per Bench This is an CIT(E), Hyderabad 25/12AA/11661 for the ass 2. S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, ld ARs appeared for the ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.548/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2024-25 Plot No.566, Infront of Laxmi Mandap, Baramunda village, Baramunda Colony S.O. Bhubaneswar. Vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Berhampur No.AABAP 0397 F (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 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(E), Hyderabad dated 22.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(E) for the assessment year 2024-25. 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. P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Exemption Ward, Respondent) Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR 2025 025 gainst the order of the ld CIT(E)/Hyd/2024- S/Shri Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kr. Behura & Ananta Narayan assessee and Shri Saroj Kumat Dubey, ITA No.548/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2024-25 P a g e 2 | 4 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 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 12AB 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. 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 ITA No.548/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2024-25 P a g e 3 | 4 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 12 AB 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) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Popet, Plot No.566, Infront of Laxmi Mandap, Baramunda village, Baramunda Colony S.O. Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: CIT(E), Hyderabad 3. Pr.CIT, 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No.548/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2024-25 P a g e 4 | 4 "