KONGUNADU KAKKUM KARNKAL,ERODE vs. CIT(E), ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2337/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 July 2026AY 2025-263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications without granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to file a condonation of delay application.

What were the facts?

The assessee-Trust applied for regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The applications were rejected by the CIT(E) for being filed belatedly without a condonation of delay application.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval without providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 22.07.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are the appeals preferred by the assessee-Trust against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(E)’), Chennai, dated 27.03.2026 rejecting the application seeking u/s.12AB and approval u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee-Trust submitted that the assessee-Trust has obtained provisional registration on 05.04.2022 for the period from AY 2022-23 to 2024-25 and subsequently assessee-Trust

ITA No. 2337 & 2338/Chny/2026 (AY ---------) Kongunadu Kakkum Karankal. :: 2 :: filed an online application on 21.09.2025 in Form 10AB u/s.12a(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Act which was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) on the ground that assessee ought to have filed the application before 30.09.2023 or before the extended time i.e.20.06.2024 (as per CBDT Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024). Since, the assessee- Trust has filed the application in Form 10AB only on 21.09.2025, the Ld.CIT(E) found the application to be filed belatedly without filing an application for condonation of delay. Hence, he was pleased to reject the application filed seeking regular registration u/s.12AB of the Act by passing the impugned order.

3.

Having rejected the registration u/s.12AB of the Act, the Ld.CIT(E) was of the view that assessee is not eligible for approval u/s.80G, hence he rejected the same. Aggrieved the assessee is before us.

4.

Heard both the parties and perused the records. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(E) before passing the impugned order ought to have granted an opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause for the delay without which he should not have rejected the application filed by the assessee. We find considerable force in the submission of the assessee and notes that the assessee-Trust was enjoying provisional registration u/s.12AB of the Act and had applied for regular registration, albeit belatedly, which application was rejected without giving an opportunity of hearing, which omission on part of Ld CIT(E) is against the principles of natural justice, which mandates that assessee ought to have been heard before passing an adverse order. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(E) and restore the applications back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to the assessee to file application for condonation along with an affidavit and

ITA No. 2337 & 2338/Chny/2026 (AY ---------) Kongunadu Kakkum Karankal. :: 3 :: other relevant material to prove the cause for the delay. The Ld.CIT(E) to consider the same in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 5. The Ld.AR of the assessee referring to the application filed for seeking approval for u/s.80G of the Act inter alia submitted that in any case since, the assessee have filed its application on 21.09.2025 in Form 10AB which may be treated as having been filed under Clause (iv)(B) of the 1st Proviso to Section 80G(5), which plea of the assessee may also be considered while the Ld CIT(E) considers the application filed by assessee seeking approval u/s.80G of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are statistically allowed. Order pronounced on the 22nd day of July 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (एबी टी. वक�) (ABY T. VARKEY) (GAGAN GOYAL) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 22nd July, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.08.03 15:16:20 +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 →