THE PERAMBUR VATTARA NADARGAL SANGA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3221/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 September 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the lack of compliance by the assessee but, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E). The assessee was directed to represent its case and submit evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) issued notices, but the assessee failed to make proper compliances. Consequently, the CIT(E) rejected the application.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to comply with the notices and present its case before the CIT(E) for registration under Section 12AB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 15.07.2026Pronounced: 21.09.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3221/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: The Perambur Vattara Nadargal Sanga Vs. The CIT(E), Educational and Charitable Trust, Chennai. New No. 54, Old No. 19, Palani Andavar Kovil Street, Perambur, Chennai - 600011. [PAN: AACTT0625Q] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Madhu Gupta, CA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. K. Jayaganesh, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai.

2.

At the outset, Ld. AR, Ms. Madhu Gupta, CA, by referring to para No. 5 of the impugned order, submits that the assessee could not furnish

2 I.T.A. No.3221/Chny/26

the details before the Ld. CIT(E) and pleaded for one more opportunity in the interest of justice.

3.

Ld. DR, Mr. K. Jayaganesh, CIT, vehemently opposed the same and submits that the Ld. CIT(E) has given several opportunities, but the assessee could not make compliance in respect of such statutory notices. He referred to para Nos. 2.4 to 4.1 of the impugned order and pleaded not to accept the submissions of the Ld. AR in remanding the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E).

4.

After hearing both the parties, we note that the assessee filed Form 10AB on 30.09.2025 seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Act. Ld. CIT(E) gave notices to the assessee, but, however, no compliances were made, which is evident from para Nos. 3 and 4 of the impugned order. Ld. CIT(E), by recording his reasons for non-compliance, rejected the application in Form 10AB vide para No. 5 of the impugned order. On perusal of para No. 5, we note that there was no compliance at all by the assessee, but, however, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E). The assessee shall represent its case before the Ld. CIT(E) without fail. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Ld. CIT(E) shall consider the

3 I.T.A. No.3221/Chny/26

same and pass an order in accordance with law. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(E) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 21st September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 21.09.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.09.23 15:31:47 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →