VISHWAMANGALAM TRUST,SABARKANTHA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1422/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 June 20265 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted an adequate opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Trust, applied for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G(5)(iii). The CIT(E) rejected both applications for non-compliance and failure to provide required documents and explanations.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval was valid without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Whether the rejection was justified solely on procedural non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 80G(5)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Bharat S Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT. DR
Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 23.06.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad both dated 08.03.2026, whereby the application of the assessee for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in ITA No.1422/Ahd/2026 and the application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act in ITA No.1423/Ahd/2026 were rejected.

ITA Nos. 1422- 1423/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : NA - 2–

ITA No.1422/Ahd/2026

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

Invalid rejection without proper opportunity The Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without granting adequate and effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 2. Rejection merely for technical non-compliance is illegal The rejection solely on the ground of non-filing of documents, without examining existing records OR prior registration, is arbitrary and unsustainable. 3. Failure to consider earlier registration The Ld. CIT(E) failed 3 to appreciate that the appellant already held valid registration w/s 12A granted earlier after due verification 4. No adverse finding on genuineness of activities The Ld. CIT(E) has not brought any adverse material to demonstrate that: Activities are non-genuine, OR Not in accordance with objects 5. Violation of Section 12AB framework The scope under section 12AB is limited to examining: Objects of trust Genuineness of activities The rejection without such examination is ultra vires. 6. Order passed without application of mind The Ld. CIT(E) 6 passed a mechanical order merely due to alleged non-compliance, without independent verification.

7.

Disproportionate action Cancellation/rejection leading to consequences under section 115TD is excessive and unjustified.

8.

Prayer for restoration. The appellant prays that: Registration 8 u/s. 12A be granted/restored Alternatively, matter be remanded for fresh consideration

ITA No.1423/Ahd/2026

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

Rejection without adequate opportunity. The order bad in law as it is passed without providing proper opportunity of hearing.

ITA Nos. 1422- 1423/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : NA - 3– 2. Mechanical rejection without examining conditions of section 80G(5). The Ld.CIT(E) failed to examine whether statutory conditions were actually violated. 3. No findings of non-genuineness. There is no adverse finding that activities are not genuine. 4. Failure to consider earlier approval. The appellant already had valid approval u/s.80G which was granted after due satisfaction. 5. Violation of Rule 11AA principles. The authority is required to examine compliance, not reject merely for procedural lapse. 6. Non-speaking order. The impugned order lacks reasoning and does not deal with facts or law. 7. Violation of natural justice. The order is passed ex parte without proper adjudication. 8. Prayer. The appellant prays that Approval u/s.80G be granted restored. Alternatively, matter e remanded

4.

The facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust and had applied for registration under Form No.10AB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the I.T Act, 1961, since the assessee-trust remained non-compliant and failed to submit/explain genuineness of the activities of the Trust.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee on the ground that that the assessee-trust has neither filed any submission nor sought any adjournment. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed that given an opportunity, the same

ITA Nos. 1422- 1423/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : NA - 4– would be apprised to the Ld.CIT(E). Ld. CIT(DR) argued that the assessee-trust needs to furnish requisite details/explanations and submissions before the Ld. CIT(E). Having considered the facts on record, we hold that interests of justice would be well served by remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration of the application afresh and to pass an order by taking into consideration the submissions /explanations submitted by the assessee.

ITA No.1423/Ahd/2026

7.

Since we have remanded the issue to the Ld.CIT(E) in ITA No.1422/Ahd/2026 against rejecting of application u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, we also set-aside the issue for approval of registration u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act in ITA No.1423/Ahd/2026 for fresh consideration.

8.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 23.06.2026 MV

ITA Nos. 1422- 1423/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : NA - 5– आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

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 →