COTTONCONNECT FARMER COMMUNITY FOUNDATION,GURGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1846/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 August 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for admission of additional evidence, stating it would have a material bearing on the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue of registration was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) due to insufficient submissions and because consultancy income exceeded 95.78% of total receipts. The CIT(E) held that the proviso to Section 2(15) was applicable.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) correctly denied registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) based on the income mix and applicability of the proviso to Section 2(15), and if additional evidence should be admitted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of an application as filed by the assessee seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) vide impugned order dated 22.10.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [CIT(E)], the assessee is in further appeal before us. Upon perusal of para 3.1 of the impugned order, it could be seen that

the registration has been denied for want of requisite submissions / documents from the assessee. It has further been observed by Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee earned consultancy income which was more than 95.78% of its total receipts during the year. The proviso to Section 2(15) was held to be applicable to the case of the assessee and therefore, the registration was denied to the assessee. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and referred to various documents as placed on record. It has been contended that the case of the assessee would fall under the clause ‘relief of poor’. At the same time, an application has also been filed u/r 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 seeking admission of additional evidences. It has been stated that all these documents would have material bearing on the case of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR referred to the findings in the impugned order. 3. We are of the considered opinion that the registration has been denied to the assessee for want of requisite submissions / documents from the assessee. The assessee now seeks admission of additional evidences which, apparently, would have material bearing to the case of the assessee. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we accept the prayer of the assessee and set aside the impugned order. The issue of registration stand restored back to Ld. CIT(E) for de novo consideration in the light of all these evidences with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. All the issues are kept open.

3.

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 03rd August, 2026

-Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 03-08-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

All 679 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →