AJON TRUST ,BERBHANGA vs. ITO, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 222/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 April 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the six-month time limit under Section 12AA(2) did not apply to the assessee's application. However, due to the assessee's failure to provide convincing replies, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee trusts were granted provisional registration and applied for regularization. The CIT(Exemption) rejected their applications and cancelled the provisional registration. The assessee argued the order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit and the CIT(E) lacked power to cancel provisional registration.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemption)'s order rejecting regularization and cancelling provisional registration was valid, considering the time limit and the power of cancellation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA(2),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Bordoloi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kr. Karnani, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 30.04.2025Pronounced: 30.04.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA Nos.221/Gau/2025
ITA Nos.222/Gau/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.221/Gau/2025

Grace Trust ITO, Ward-North Lakhimpur, Assam Mechakai Gaon, Mechaki Vs Tongani, P.o-Silapathar- 787110. Assam. (PAN: AAETG0132F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA Nos.222/Gau/2025

Ajon Trust ITO, Ward-North Lakhimpur, Assam Vs Berbhanga, P.O Gogamukh- 787034, Assam. (PAN: AAITA7821M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri M. K. Bordoloi, CA Revenue by : Shri Santosh Kr. Karnani, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Exemption), Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] in application nos.CIT(Exemption), Kolkata/2024-25/12AA/12870 and

ITA No.221&222/Gau/2025 CIT(Exemption), Kolkata/2024-25/12AA/12867 dated 25.06.2025 & 23.06.2025 respectively. Since similar facts and issues are involved in both the appeals, therefore, these have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. ITA No.221/Gau/2025 is taken as lead case and the decision of this order will mutatis mutandis apply to another appeal in ITA No.222/Kol/2025.

2.

Shri M. K. Bordoloi, CA represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Santhosh Kr. Karnani, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had been granted provisional registration for three assessment years from 18.03.2024. The assessee has applied for regularization of registration on 29.12.2024. The ld. CIT(E) has rejected the same and has also cancelled the provisional registration. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(E) shows that the ld. CIT(E) has disposed the said application vide an order dated 23.06.2025. It was further submitted that as the order has been passed beyond six months as prescribed in the provisions of section 12AA(2) of the Act, the order of the ld. CIT(E) is liable to be treated as non-est. It was also submitted that the ld. CIT(E) did not have the power to cancel the provisional registration already granted.

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the provisions of section 12AA(2) prescribes a period of six months did not apply to the provisions of any application made u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. It was the

ITA No.221&222/Gau/2025 submission that the assessee had been given opportunity but the assessee did not respond to the notices. It was the submission that the cancellation is valid.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the provisions of section 12AA(2) shows that the six months period referred to is in regard to applications received under clause (a) or clause (aa) or clause (ab) of sub-section 1 of section 12A. Admittedly, the assessee has made the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee of six months period does not survive. However, it is noticed that the assessee has failed to submit any convincing reply to the queries raised by the ld. CIT(E). This being so, in the interest of justice, the order of the ld. CIT(E) is being set aside and the issues are being restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 30/04/2026 RS

ITA No.221&222/Gau/2025

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

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

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →