M/S. GANESA SANKARI HOME,KANCHIPURAM vs. CIT (EXEEMPTION) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 302/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 July 20264 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(E)'s order as the assessee failed to furnish complete details and rebut the findings. In the absence of any representation or documentary evidence from the assessee, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(E) rejecting its application for registration under Section 12AB. The assessee failed to appear before the tribunal despite multiple notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB by the CIT(E) was justified, given the assessee's failure to provide complete details and appear before the tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ◌, लेखा सद� के सम% Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 302/Chny/2026 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: M/s. Ganesa Sankari Home, Vs. Commissioner of Plot No.21, Manickam Nagar, Income Tax (Exemption), First Main Road, Chennai. Madambakkam, Tambaram, Kanchipuram – 600 126. [PAN: AABTG-7873-L] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*थ(/Respondent) अपीलाथ( की ओर से / Appellant by : None )*थ( की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai, (herein after “ld.CIT(E)”).

2.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. On an examination of the record,

:-2-: ITA No: 302/Chny/2026

we find that the assessee filed the appeal on 23.01.2026 and after

scrutiny the Registry ITAT, Chennai Benches fixed the appeal for

hearing on 05.05.2026 and intimated the same to assessee vide notice

dated 20.03.2026. Further, the record shows that the assessee received

the said notice on 25.03.2026, proof of receipt is on record vide postal

acknowledgement dated 25.03.2026. Further, it is noted from order

sheet entry that there was no appearance of assessee on 05.05.2026

and the appeal was adjourned to 23.06.2026 with a direction to Registry

to issue another notice through RPAD. Accordingly, the Registry, ITAT

issued another notice on 06.05.2026 intimating the fixation of appeal for

hearing on 23.06.2026. On 23.06.2026, the assessee called absent and we proceed to hear the ld.DR, Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT, and decide the

issue by considering the relevant material available on record.

3.

On perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that the assessee

filed application dated 29.04.2025 in Form10AB seeking registration u/s.

12AB of the Act. The ld.CIT(E) issued questionnaire on 02.09.2025 calling for various details and to file the same in support of the claim of

registration u/s. 12AB of the Act on or before 17.09.2025. We find in

response to the same the assessee filed its submissions on 17.09.2025

:-3-: ITA No: 302/Chny/2026

and on noticing certain irregularities/ inconsistencies/ anomalies the ld.CIT(E), issued show cause notice elaborating the same which are

reproduced in page no. 4 to 6 of the impugned order. According to the ld.CIT(E) vide para no.4.2 & 4.3 of the impugned order, that the assessee failed to furnish the required details in full and complete as mandated by Rule 17A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 and rejected the application seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. As discussed above, we note no representation nor any submissions with relevant documentary evidences rebutting the findings of the ld.CIT(E) filed

before us and therefore, in the absence of any relevant documentary evidences, we find no infirmity in ld.CIT(E) in rejecting the application dated 29.04.2025 seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. Thus, order

of the ld.CIT(E) is justified and grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 27th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 27.07.2026

:-4-: ITA No: 302/Chny/2026

JPV आदेश की )ितिलिप अ0ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ(/Appellant, 2.)*थ(/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु1/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय )ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड& फाईल/GF

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.30 10:45:06 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →