SANVI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,PUDUCHERRY vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

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.3453/CHNY/2026 are stated herein. ITA No.3453/CHNY/2026 – 12AB : 4. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of CIT(E) is erroneous and illegal as the same is contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust incorporated under the provisions of Trust Act. It was stated to have been formed with charitable objects. The appellant trust filed an application in Form No.10AB seeking grant of Registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.09.2025.

On receipt of the said application, the Learned CIT(E) sought information from the appellant trust, so as to satisfy himself about the charitable nature of the objects of the Trust and genuineness of the activities of the Trust and also required the appellant to file certain documents and the copy of the approval u/s.12A obtained in the old regime etc. According to the Learned CIT(E), the appellant had failed to submit all those documents, therefore, proceeded to hold that he was not satisfied about the charitable nature of objects of the Trust and genuineness of its activities, accordingly, rejected the grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal. The Learned Cousnel submits that the appellant could not comply with the notices issued by the Leaned CIT(E) as the same was served through email which went unnoticed by the office bearers of the appellant-trust, therefore, he prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of Learned CIT(Exemptions) for de novo disposal of the application.

We have perused the Affidavit and the averments made in the Affidavit. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by Learned CIT-DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. In the light of this legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the delay had occurred in filing the appeal on account of Bonafide reasons and the explanation cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, hence, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

On the other hand, the Learned CIT-DR has no serious objection for remand the matter to the file of Learned CIT(E) for fresh disposal of application.

We heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Learned CIT(E), Chennai was justified in rejecting the grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On mere perusal of the impugned order, it would be evident that the Learned CIT(E) had denied the grant of registration only for the reason that the appellant had failed to furnish information as called for by him so as to satisfy himself as to the objects of the Trust are charitable in nature and genuineness of the activities carried on by the appellant. However, from the material on record placed at page no.15 of the appeal memo record, it is evident that the appellant had filed the information as required by the Learned CIT(E) vide Acknowledgment No.896964590300925. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Learned CIT(E) had passed impugned order in ignorance of the fact that the appellant filed all the requisite information as sought for by him. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a remand to file of Learned CIT(E) for de novo disposal of the application in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.3453/CHNY/2026 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.3454/CHNY/2026 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.

To sum up, both appeals filed by the appellant-trust are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th September, 2026.