GT & MEERA VERGHESE FOUNDATION,CHENNAI 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.3520/CHNY/2026 are stated herein.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Order of the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) is shout jurisdiction, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

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 24.03.2025.

On receipt of the said application, the Learned CIT(E) sought information vide letter dated 29.05.2025 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. In response to the questionnaire, the appellant trust filed details / written submissions on 13.06.2025. On perusal of the explanation / information filed by the appellant trust, the Learned CIT(Exemption) observed that the appellant should have applied u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) not u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act and further found that the appellant-trust had not filed the information as called-for by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption). In the circumstances, the Learned CIT(E) issued a show cause notice calling upon the appellant trust to file the objections as to why the application should not be rejected. However, the appellant had not responded to the said show cause notice. In the circumstances, the Learned CIT(E) rejected the grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the above order of Learned CIT(E), the appellant-trust is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, there is a delay of 200 days in presenting the appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant filed petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that delay had occurred on account of the fact that the impugned order was served upon the appellant-trust through email, which went unnoticed by the Trustee appellant- trust as he was a Senior Citizen aged 74 years and not in the regular habit of checking emails. Thus, he prayed for the condonation of delay.

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.

The Learned Counsel submits that the appellant-trust could not respond to the show cause notices issued by the Learned CIT(E) as no reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant- trust. Therefore, she prays for the remand of the matter to the file of Learned CIT(E) for de novo disposal of the application.

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 appeal.

We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Learned CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act. On perusal of the impugned order, it would be evident that the Learned CIT(E) had denied the grant of registration solely for the reason that the appellant-trust had not responded to the show cause notice issued by the Learned CIT(E). From the impugned order, it is clear that the show cause notice was issued on 15.09.2025 and the impugned order was passed on 25.09.2025 granting only one opportunity which clearly goes to show that the appellant-trust was not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is also clear form the impugned order that the order was passed in haste in order to meet the limitation expiring on 30.09.2025. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the matter is restored to the file of Learned CIT(E) for a de novo disposal of the application in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant-trust.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee-trust in ITA No.3520/CHNY/2026 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.3519/CHNY/2026 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.

To sum up, both appeal filed by the appellant-trust are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th September, 2026.