LOK SAHAYOG,GOLAMUNDA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDRABAD, HYDRABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 287/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 May 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for readjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the application due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The assessee also failed to appear before the ITAT, though an adjournment application was filed and rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemption) was justified in rejecting the registration application without affording proper opportunity to the assessee, and the assessee's non-cooperation in proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “HYBRID COURT AT CUTTACK”

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri None (adjournment application filed)
For Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Hearing: 25.05.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “HYBRID COURT AT CUTTACK” BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.287/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2025-26 Lok Sahayog CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad Vs Golamunda, S.O Kalahandi, Odisha-766016. (PAN: AAAAL2437M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri None (adjournment application filed) Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.01.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee but adjournment application has submitted and the same is rejected. Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld. CIT DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(E).

ITA No.287/CTK/2026 Consequently, the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application filed in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act. However, so as to grant the assessee another opportunity to rectify its recalcitrant attitude, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the assessment proceedings and during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. CIT(E), we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten Thousand only) on the assessee to be payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Odisha, Cuttack within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the ld. CIT(E) at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above-mentioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(E) shall stand confirmed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Cuttack, the 25th May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 25.05.2026. RS

ITA No.287/CTK/2026

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

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →