ELLORUKKUM KALVI FOUNDATION,ERODE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3401/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 September 20264 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the registrations sought were subsequently granted. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(Exemption) denying registration under sections 12AB and 80G. Subsequently, the assessee was granted the required registrations.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals are maintainable when the registration sought has been granted post-appeal filing. The primary issue became the withdrawal of the appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES,

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Pronounced: 11.09.2026

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

These are two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Chennai denying grant of Registration ELLORUKKUM KALVI FOUNDATION [A]

u/s.12AB(1)(b) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 both dated 16.03.2026. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both these appeals of the Assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No.3401/CHNY/2026 are stated herein.

3.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. The Impugned order is unjust, unreasonable and bad in law.

2.

The Ld. Commissioner(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application filed by not considering the totality of facts and by not taking a holistic view of the instant case with the materials available on record.

3.

Without prejudice, the Ld.Commissioner(Exemption) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the Appellant to explain their position, causing prejudice.”

4.

At the outset of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the appellant-trust submitted a letter dated 25.08.2026, seeking permission to withdraw the appeal since the appellant –trust had ELLORUKKUM KALVI FOUNDATION [A]

been granted the registration u/s.12AB in Form NO.10AC dated 07.04.2022 and approval u/s.80G in Form No.10AC dated 15.11.2022 for both the assessment years 2022-23 to 2026-27. He prayed that the appeals may be treated as withdrawn.

5.

On the other hand, the Learned CIT-DR has no objection for its withdrawal. We permit the appellant to withdraw both the appeals. The appeals are dismissed as “withdrawn”.

6.

In the result, both appeals filed by the appellant in ITA No.3401/CHNY/2026 & ITA No.3402/CHNY/2026 are dismissed as ‘withdrawn’. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th September, 2026. (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 11th Sep, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS ELLORUKKUM KALVI FOUNDATION [A]

आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” ब"च, चे"नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File.

5.

GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.09.17 18:06:52 +05'30'

4

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →