O.P. Bhalla Foundation, New Delhi vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.6759/Del/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner's rejection of an application for exemption under section 80G as infructuous, on the sole ground that the application for registration under section 12A was still pending, is not sustainable where the registration under section 12A has since been granted; the matter is to be remitted to the Commissioner for fresh decision on the section 80G application in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Assessee By : Shri Tarun Kumar, Advocate Department By : Shri Gunjan Prashad, CIT, DR
Date of Hearing : 13.04.2015. Date of Pronouncement : .04.2015.
ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by
the CIT(Exemption) on 28.11.2014 denying the grant of registration for ITA No.6759/Del/2014
the purposes of exemption u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter also called `the Act').
2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant
material on record. It is apparent from the impugned order that the
assessee applied for grant of exemption u/s 80G during the pendency of
its application for the grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act. The ld.
CIT(E) rejected the application u/s 80G as infructuous on the ground
that the matter of granting registration u/s 12A was still pending. The ld.
AR contended before us that the order granting registration u/s 12A has
now been passed on 5.12.2014, after around a week's time from the
impugned order. In view of the fact that the registration u/s 12A now
stands granted to the assessee, we set aside the impugned order and
remit the matter to the file of ld. CIT(E) for deciding the question of
granting exemption u/s 80G afresh, as per law, after allowing a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
2 ITA No.6759/Del/2014
3. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order pronounced in the open court on 13.04.2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
[A.T. VARKEY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated, 13th April, 2015. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT
AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free