SHRI DIGAMBAR JAIN SIDDH KSHETRE PAVAGIRI JI PRABANDH SAMITI,LALITPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 457/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 July 2026AY 2026-276 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to consider the fresh registration granted to the assessee and did not provide an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside due to violation of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) for being belated. The assessee argued that a fresh registration was granted subsequently, which the CIT(Exemption) failed to consider.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application without considering a subsequent fresh registration and without affording an opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri. Sahib P Satsangi Yadav, C.A
For Respondent: Smt. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT DR
Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 457 & 458/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2026-27 Shri Digambar Jain Siddh Kshetre Vs. CIT Exemption, Aayakar Pavagiri Ji Prabandh Samiti, Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Vill & Post- Pava, Teh- Talbehat, Agra-282002 Dist-Lalitpur-284126 PAN :AAHAS2895K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Sahib P Satsangi Yadav, C.A. Department by Smt. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT DR Date of hearing 06.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.07.2026 ORDER PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER The facts and issues involved in both these appeals are almost identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 457/Agr/2026 are only being narrated as under. ITA No. 457/Agr/2026

2.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 passed in appeal No CIT (Exemption), Lucknow/2025-26/12AA/18048 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA No.457&458/Agr/2026

(Exemption) Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(E) u/s. 12AB/(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2026-27, wherein ld CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application as filed belatedly. 3. The appellant assessee filed an online application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act on 24.09.2025 for approval. The relevant para 2 and 3 of the impugned order rejecting assessee’s application, speaks as under: “2. As per the provisions contained in clause (ii) of clause (ac) to sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income-tax Act, the application was required to be filed at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. Since, the applicant is provisionally approved from AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25, therefore, the application in Form 10AB was required to be filed, in either case, on or before 30.09.2023. Further, the CBDT, vide Circular no. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 had extended this due date to 30.06.2024. Despite this, the applicant failed to furnish the application within the extended due date. Furthermore, the assessee did not file any application seeking condonation of delay for the late filing of Form 10AB. 3. Since the applicant has failed to file application in Form 10AB within extended due dates, therefore, the belated application cannot be accepted, hence, rejected as not maintainable.” 4. Appellant assessee preferred this second appeal on the following grounds: “1. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order proceeds on a manifestly erroneous factual premise, viz., that the Appellant is "provisionally registered vide order dated 07.04.2022 with unique registration number AAHAS2895KE2011 from AY 2022-23 to 2024- 25.This finding is contrary to the record. This provisional registration was unambiguously cancelled by the learned CIT(E), Lucknow, vide Form 10AD dated 21.03.2024. Therefore, the learned CIT(E) has committed a grave error of fact apparent on the face of the record by treating a non- existent/cancelled registration as the subject matter of the present

2 | P a g e

ITA No.457&458/Agr/2026

application. The impugned order is accordingly liable to be quashed in its entirety on this ground alone. 2. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case, subsequent to the cancellation of provisional registration on 21.03.2024, the Appellant exercised its statutory right and filed a fresh application under section 12A(1)(ac) (vi)/4A-Item B of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act) and the learned CIT(E), Lucknow, after due application of mind and examination of the Appellant's case, granted a fresh registration under section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act vide Form 10AD dated 25.10.2024, bearing URN AAHAS2895K24LK01, for AYs 2022-23 to 2026-27. The Form 10AB application filed on 24.09.2025 is in direct furtherance of subsisting registration granted on 25.10.2024 and is for obtaining reregistration upon expiry of the period covered thereunder. The impugned order makes no reference whatsoever to the Form 10AD dated 25.10.2024 or to the registration bearing URN AAHAS2895K24LK01, notwithstanding that both are on record with the office of the learned CIT(E). This constitutes a complete non-application of mind and renders the impugned order unreasoned and perverse. 3. Because the total non-consideration of a subsisting, valid registration granted prior to the impugned rejection is a jurisdictional error vitiating the impugned order. 4. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case the present Form 10AB dated 24.09.2025 filed under section 12A(1)(ac) (ii) of the Act, for the purpose of obtaining regular registration pursuant to the fresh registration granted on 25.10.2024 (URN AAHAS2895K24LK01), valid up to AY 2026- 27 before the applicable statutory deadline of 30.09.2025 is entirely within time and the learned CIT(E) erred both in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without reference to the correct set of facts and the applicable statutory timeline. 5. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(E) erred in incorrectly superimposing the timelines and legal obligations of the Application filed on 30.09.2023 under section 12A (1) (ac)(iii) of the Act for conversion of provisional registration AAHAS2895KE2011 upon the Fresh application under section 12A(1) (ac) (vi)/4A-Item B of the Act, resulting in a new registration AAHAS2895K24LK01. Both the applications are independent of each other and governed by different statutory timelines. This confusion of cause of action is a fundamental error of law rendering the impugned order unsustainable. 6. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(E) has power under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) (B) to reject an application only after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. The denial of such an opportunity has caused irreparable prejudice to the Appellant. The order passed is void ab initio and deserves to be set aside.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.457&458/Agr/2026

7.

That without prejudice to the above grounds, the error committed by the learned CIT(E) in ignoring the Form 10AB dated 05.04.2024 and Form 10AD dated 25.10.2024(URN AAHAS2895K24LK01) both of which are documents on the system records of the Income Tax Department constitutes a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (section 287 of the Income Tax Act, 2025). The Appellant has filed a Rectification Application dated 15.04.2026 before the learned CIT(E), Lucknow, and reserves the right to press this ground before the Hon'ble Tribunal as an alternative relief. 8. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the foregoing grounds of appeal, whether in whole or in part, at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 5. We have perused the records and heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld CIT DR for the respondent revenue. 6. Ld representative for the appellant assessee has submitted that the appellant trust was provisionally registered on 07.04.2022 for A.Y. 2022-23 to 2024-25. Ld AR has drawn the attention of the bench towards the chart attached to the assessee’s paper book, depicting the details set out in the aforesaid grounds of appeal. Ld AR has submitted that the fresh registration u/s 12AB was granted on 25.10.2024 for A.Y. 2022-23 to 2026-27. The relevant details mentioned in the chart are part of the assessee’s paper book. Ld AR, thus, submits that neither the fresh registration dated 25.10.2024 has been considered by the ld CIT Exemption nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant assessee before passing the impugned order. Prays to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 7. Ld CIT DR supports the impugned order.

4 | P a g e

ITA No.457&458/Agr/2026

8.

We notice that the impugned order does not make any mention in respect of assessee’s fresh approval dated 25.10.2024, as stated hereinabove. Had this fact been considered by ld CIT(E), the sole issue of delay could not have been made the basis for the rejection of assessee’s application. The impugned order also does not reflect as to whether the assessee was afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, not sustainable. The impugned order is thus, set aside. The matter is restored back to the file of ld CIT (Exemption) who shall take into consideration all the information furnished in the aforesaid grounds of appeal as stated hereinabove, and pass order a fresh in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee in substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 458/Agr/2026 9. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 passed in appeal No CIT Exemption, Lucknow/2025- 26/12AA/17757 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow passed under second proviso to clause (ii) of section 80(G)(5)(B)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein ld CIT(A) has

5 | P a g e

ITA No.457&458/Agr/2026

dismissed assessee’s belated application filed in form 10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) on 25.09.2025 seeking approval under second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. The facts are similar and issues are identical in this appeal also. Hence, our findings in ITA No. 457/Agr/2026 shall mutatis-mutandis apply in this appeal also. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee viz ITA No. 457/Agr/2026 & 458/Agr/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned orders are set aside.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 09.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 09.07.2026 *AS, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

6 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →