ANDHAJAN MANDAL,KHEDA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is to consider the applications along with the submissions made by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Trust, applied for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected both applications without granting sufficient opportunity for hearing and without considering submissions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration and approval without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering the assessee's submissions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMEBR:-
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.1243/Ahd/2026 and the application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act in ITA No.1244/Ahd/2026 were rejected.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Asst. Year : N.A - 2–
That on facts, CIT (Exemption) has and in law, the grievously erred learned in not granting sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing and in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A(1) (ac) (iii) of the Act, vide ex-parte order.
That on facts and in law, the application made u/s 12A (1) (ac) (iii) of the Act ought to have been granted by learned CIT (Exemption) as prayed for.
The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
That on facts, CIT (Exemption) has and in law, grievously the erred learned in not granting sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing and in rejecting the application for approval u/s 80G(5) (iii) of the Act, vide ex-parte order.
That on facts and in law, the application made u/s 80G(5) (iii) ought to have been granted by learned CIT (Exemption) as prayed for.
The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.
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 failed to submit any details,
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.
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 Asst. Year : N.A - 3– has neither filed any submission nor sought any adjournment. Therefore, the Ld.Counsel prayed that given an opportunity, the same 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.
Since we have remanded the issue to the Ld.CIT(E) in ITA No.1243/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.1244/Ahd/2026 for fresh consideration.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.05.2026 (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER () () Ahmedabad; Dated 22.05.2026 MV Asst. Year : N.A - 4–
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""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,सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3149/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3148/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- D vs Welfare Foundation, Thanevs.Income Tax…ITA 6191/MUM/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026