PONNUSAMY NADAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 267/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 July 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation for non-representation to be bonafide. The case was remitted back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case with necessary details.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trust, had its registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act rejected by the CIT(E) for failing to respond to notices. The assessee claimed the notices were sent to an incorrect email address and they were unaware of the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration under Section 12AB was justified when the assessee was not aware of the notices due to an incorrect email address, and whether the delay in appeal filing should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A,Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT

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 06.03.2024 rejecting the registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

2.

The assessee is a trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act from 19.01.1989. The assessee filed an application u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act and obtained the approval granting registration for five years i.e., AY 2022-23 to 2026-27 vide order dated 07.04.2025. Subsequently, on 15.09.2023 the assessee filed

ITA No.267/Chny/2026 Ponnusamy Nadar Educational Trust :- 2 -: an application u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and the impugned order by the CIT(E) is passed rejecting the said application. The CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that the assessee has not responded to the notices issued. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(E).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. There is a delay of 601 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that though the assessee had registration u/s. 12A of the Act till AY 2026-27 while processing for obtaining registration under "Niti Ayog" was wrongly advised by the consultant that it had obtained only a provisional registration and accordingly proceeded to file the application u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act on 16.09.2022. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the screenshot of the profile registered in the ITDA portal to submit that the assessee has registered an email ID of pnbedcollege@gmail.com whereas the notices by the CIT(E) was sent to a different email ID i.e., yogam30@rediffmail.com (page 1 to 9 of paper book). The Ld. AR accordingly submitted that the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the CIT(E) and hence did not file any details. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac) of the Act which was valid upto AY 2026-27 will hold good and continued to file the return of income claiming deduction u/s. 11 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that only when the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act is denied for AY 2023-24 and 2024-25 vide intimation dated 17.12.2025 and 23.12.2025 the assessee was advised to file appeal against the order rejecting the application filed on 15.09.2023 in which the CIT(E) has cancelled the registration earlier granted up to AY 2026-27. The ld. AR accordingly prayed that the delay in filing the appeal

ITA No.267/Chny/2026 Ponnusamy Nadar Educational Trust :- 3 -: before the Tribunal may be condoned one more opportunity may be given to represent the case properly. On perusal of the records submitted before us and the documentary evidences, we are convinced that the series of events had explained by the Ld. AR before us are supported by the documentary evidences therefore, we see merit in the submission that the delay in filing appeal against the order of the CIT(E) is bonafide. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. Further, the reasons as stated hereinabove are also the reasons for not representing the case properly before the CIT(E). Hence, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(E) with a direction to call for necessary details to decide the issue of registration u/s.12AB of the Act 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th day of July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद�य सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य लेखा लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 13th July, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH NARESH Date: 2026.07.17 12:09:56 +05'30'

ITA No.267/Chny/2026 Ponnusamy Nadar Educational Trust :- 4 -: आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड! फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →