AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal is directed against order of the Ld. CIT(E), Lucknow, dated 19.09.2025, wherein the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, filed by the applicant on 27.03.2025 has been rejected in the absence of registration u/s 12AB of the Act.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal and has raised following grounds as under:
"1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) is erroneous and bad in law.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12 AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961
3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in not allowing the registration of the appellant u/s 12 AB of the Act.
4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reasons given by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for rejecting the application of the appellant for registration u/s 12AB of the Act are erroneous and not sustainable.
5.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(Exemption) erred in passing an ex-parte order.
6.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (Exemption) is against the principles of natural justice."
We have heard the Ld. DR for the Revenue and examined the impugned order in the appeal. The only contention raised before us is that the Principle of Natural Justice has not been followed while passing the impugned order as no effective opportunity of hearing has been given when rejecting the application u/s 12AB of the Act. It is therefore prayed that matter may be restored to the file of the Id. CIT(E) for considering it afresh by giving opportunity of hearing and to permit to file necessary documents. The Ld. DR on the other hand stated that despite of numerous opportunity given by Id. CIT(E) as find mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order therefore, the assessee is not entitled to any mercy due to thereon conduct and appeal is required to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record, it is noticed that no proof of subsequent notice is placed on record. Ld. CIT(E) is a quasi judicial authority who is duty bound to follow the principal of natural justice.
We extract the para 2 of the impugned order which would make clear that the effective opportunity of hearing has not been given, as under:
> '2. Accordingly vide letter dated 04.08.2025 fixing the date of compliance on 11.08.2025, certain clarifications were sought from the assessee, but no reply has been filed by the assessee. Again second notice has been issued on 19.08.2025 fixing the date of compliance on 25.08.2025, but once again no reply has been filed by the assessee. Consequently following the principle of natural justice a final opportunity has been provided vide notice dated 02.09.2025 fixing the date of compliance on 08.09.2025. However, till date no response has been received, neither any adjournment is sought in this regard."
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without effective hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed. For these reasons, the impugned order is not maintainable and accordingly set aside. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for deciding the issue of requisite approval sought by the appellant afresh by affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(E) within the period of 60 days of this order.
The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms for statistical purposes.