KADALI GOPALAKRISHNA & BHARATHI CHARITABLE TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTION, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had denied registration based on non-filing of documents. However, considering the assessee's plea and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable trust, appealed against the CIT(E)'s order refusing registration under Section 12AA. The assessee claimed improper service of notice and that the lapse in filing Form 10A was procedural.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) erred in refusing registration under Section 12AA due to procedural lapses and improper service of notice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S. GODARA
Kadali Gopalakrishna & VS. CIT (Exemptions), Bharathi Charitable Trust, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AADTK 0258 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR Date of hearing: 03/03/2021 Date of pronouncement: 07/04/2021 ORDER
PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(E), Hyderabad in appeal F.No. CIT(E)/Hyd/50(03)/12A/2017-18, dated 27/09/2018 passed U/s.12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.
The assessee has raised four grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-
1. 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in refusing to grant registration U/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The Ld. CIT(E) ought to have seen that the notice posting the case for hearing on 25/09/2018 was served on the appellant on 28/09/2018. Hence there was no proper service of notice.
3. The Ld. CIT(E) ought to have seen that the appellant has furnished copies of the Trust Deed and all other details called for by him.
4. The Ld. CIT(E) ought to have seen that the lapse on the part of the appellant in not filing the Form 10A electronically is only a procedural lapse.”
At the time of hearing this appeal none appeared before us to represent the case of the assessee. From the record, it also appears that the assessee did not appear before the Ld.CIT(E). However, in the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the notice for hearing before the Ld.CIT(E) was not received by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that though the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunities before the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee did not properly utilised the opportunity granted by the Ld.CIT(E). It was therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(E) may be confirmed.
We have heard the Ld. DR and carefully perused the material on record. On examining the order of the Ld. CIT(E), we find that while denying registration to the assessee U/s. 12AA of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) had observed that the assessee has not filed the necessary documents such as the Trust Deed etc. However, considering the assessee’s prayer, and in the interest of justice We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (E) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co- operate before the Ld. CIT (E) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 07th April, 2021.
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pramod Kumar Behera vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Mrs. Sharma Glass And Plywoods vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Fino Payments Bank Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026