THE ANJUMAN-E KHAIR KHAHE GURBAE AHLE ISLAM, MADRA,CHENNAI vs. CIT,(EXEMPTION), CHENNAI, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inadvertent action and the fact that a response was filed for one application. Considering the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a philanthropic institution, applied for final registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(E) rejected the application for non-furnishing of details, which the assessee claimed was due to an inadvertent filing of two applications and a response to only one.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of registration under Section 12AB was justified when the assessee claimed to have filed a response to one of two inadvertently filed applications.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS. PADMAVATHY.S
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai (in short "CIT(E)") dated 16.03.2026 denying registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
The assessee is an established philanthropic institution registered under Societies Registration Act. The assessee filed an application for provisional registration u/s.12AB of the Act which was granted. The assessee
ITA No.1737/Chny/2026 The Anjuman-E-Khair Khahe Gurbae Ahle Islam :- 2 -: subsequently filed an application in Form-10AB for final registration on 30.09.2025. The CIT(E) called for certain details such as the trust deed, financials, note on activity and the copy of approval u/s. 12A obtained in the old regime etc. Since the assessee did not file any of the details called for by the CIT(E), the application for registration came to be rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(E).
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the reason for rejecting the registration by CIT(E) on the ground that the assessee has not filed the response is factually incorrect. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has filed a complete evidentiary response on 30.01.2026 which has not been considered by the CIT(E). The Ld. AR in this regard drew our attention to the submissions made before the CIT(E) (page 6 & 7 of paper book). The ld AR however, submitted that the assessee has inadvertently filed two applications in Form 10AB and has filed response to notice calling for one of the applications. The ld AR further submitted that the CIT(E) has considered the application for which the assessee did not respond thereby rejecting the registration though all the relevant details were already available on record. The Ld. AR fairly conceded that the rejection might have been due to assessee's inadvertent action of filing two applications and accordingly prayed for one more opportunity may be given. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(E) with a direction to consider the details already filed by the assessee and call for any further details as may be required to decide the issue
ITA No.1737/Chny/2026 The Anjuman-E-Khair Khahe Gurbae Ahle Islam :- 3 -: in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 06th day of August, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 06th August, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant Date: 2026.08.10 NARESH 11:58:59 +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026