TRISHA SHIKSHAN SOCIETY,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 600/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 May 2026AY 2027-282 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's past registration and the potential existence of a valid MOU. It set aside the rejection order and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee society's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was rejected because the submitted MOU was neither registered nor signed by members. The assessee argued they had past registration and were not given a proper opportunity to rectify defects.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was justified due to a defective MOU, and if the assessee was granted a proper opportunity to cure the defects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.600/CHANDI/2026 M/s Trisha Shikshan Society ITO Exemption Ward Solan 19/7 Old Bus Stand, Hamirpur Aaykar Bhawan, Solan बनाम/ Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 177001 Himachal Pradesh �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABTT-0028-L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 25-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25-05-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of registration as sought by the assessee u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) vide impugned order dated 10-03-2026 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [CIT(E)], the assessee is in further appeal before us. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. Upon perusal of para 4.1 of the impugned order, it could be seen that the registration has been denied merely on the ground that the

copy of MOU as submitted by the assessee was neither registered nor signed by the members. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee has enjoyed registration in the past and no effective opportunity of hearing has been granted to the assessee to cure the defects. The Ld. CIT-DR stated that the case may be remanded back to Ld. CIT(E). 3. Since the assessee has enjoyed registration in the past, the existence of valid MOU could not be denied. Therefore, accepting the prayer of Ld. AR, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue of registration back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for de novo consideration with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25th May, 2026.

-Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 25-05-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH

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

All 679 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →