Trust gets second chance after failing to respond to Section 12A registration notices through ITBA portal

ITAT Amritsar allowed appellant's appeal for statistical purposes regarding rejection of registration application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The trust failed to respond to notices served through ITBA portal dated 13.11.2023, 22.12.2023, and 09.01.2024, preventing CIT(E) from verifying genuineness of activities against stated objects. ITAT set aside CIT(E)'s order and directed de novo consideration after providing reasonable opportunity to assessee and examining charitable objects and genuineness of activities in accordance with MoA requirements.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh. The appellant raised grounds of appeal, arguing that the rejection was improper due to alleged non-compliance with notices served through the ITBA portal and lack of proper opportunity given. The delay in filing the appeal was explained as being due to health issues of the appellant, which was condoned, and the appeal was admitted on merits.

The Commissioner rejected the application citing non-compliance with notices issued through the ITBA portal. The appellant argued that no questionnaire was received and requested the matter to be restored for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The Commissioner's decision was supported by the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal examined the details of notices issued and found that the appellant had not provided the required information despite multiple opportunities, leading to the rejection of the application. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents supporting dismissal for non-compliance and lack of diligence on the part of the assessee.

The appellant contended that notices were not received due to incorrect email addresses on the ITBA portal, but failed to provide substantial evidence to support this claim. The Deputy Commissioner argued that it was the appellant's responsibility to update their contact information on the portal. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and upheld the rejection of the application due to lack of factual evidence and non-compliance with statutory notices.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case where the failure to provide documentary evidence led to the rejection of the application. It was emphasized that the appellant needed to demonstrate the genuineness of their activities in line with their stated objectives. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed a fresh decision to be made after providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant and considering their submissions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory notices and the need for appellants to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. The case underscores the significance of natural justice and the right to be heard in matters of registration under the Income Tax Act.

---