SHRI BHADRAKALI MATAJI SEVA TRUST,SIDHPUR, PATAN vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1495/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 June 2026AY 2026-275 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that rejecting the application after only one opportunity violated principles of natural justice. It was deemed appropriate to provide the assessee with another chance to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-compliance with a notice and non-appearance at a hearing. The assessee argued that only one hearing was granted and their CA was unavailable due to a family function.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of a registration application under Section 12AB solely on the grounds of non-compliance with a single hearing notice, without affording adequate opportunity, is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 10.06.2026Pronounced: 12.06.2026

PER TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, [in short “CIT(E)”], dated 09.03.2026 in the proceeding u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an application in Form No. 10AB for registration of Trust u/s. 12AB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) had called for certain details from the assessee in order to examine the genuineness of the activities of the trust and to satisfy himself that the activities were in consonance with the objects of the trust. As no

ITA No. 1495/Ahd/2026 Shri Bhadrakali Mataji Seva Trust Vs. CIT(E)

compliance was made by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the application of the assessee vide the impugned order and the provisional registration granted earlier was also cancelled.

3.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

1.1 The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Appellant’s application for final registration under section 12AB of the IT Act, vide impugned order dated 09.03.2026 1.2 The learned CIT(Exemption) ought not to have rejected the application for registration under Section 12AB solely on the ground of non-appearance at a single hearing, without appreciating that the Chartered Accountant exclusively handling the matter was unable to attend on account of a family function/ceremony in his family bona fide, unavoidable personal circumstance compliance was neither wilful nor deliberate. 1.3 The learned CIT(Exemption) grievously erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned rejection order dated 09.03.2026 without granting more than one opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. Grant of a single hearing opportunity in proceedings of this nature is patently insufficient and falls short of the minimum standard of reasonable and adequate opportunity mandated by the principles of natural justice and the scheme of the Act. 1.4 The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of non-submission of a note on activities and other unspecified details, without: (a) Considering the documents already submitted with the Form 10AB application (b) Examining the objects and activities mentioned in the trust deed (C) Verifying the financial statements and other documents on record. It is therefore prayed that the appellant may please granted registration u/s.. 12AA in the interest of natural justice considering the eccentric facts of the case.

4.

Shri Vivek Chavda, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(E) had allowed only one opportunity of hearing on 24.02.2026.Further, he explained that the Chartered Accountant who was

ITA No. 1495/Ahd/2026 Shri Bhadrakali Mataji Seva Trust Vs. CIT(E) exclusively handling and managing the registration application could not attend the hearing on 03.03.2026 on account of family function in his family on the said date. The Ld. AR explained that the non-compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR explained that the Ld. CIT(E) had passed the order without taking into account the substantial details and documents and without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, He requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity of being heard by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E).

5.

Per contra, Shri Kiran Unavekar, the Ld. CIT-DR, supported the order of Ld. CIT(E). He, however, had no objection if the matter was set aside the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.

6.

We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the material available on record. It is observed that the application of the assessee- trust for registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 came to be rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) primarily on account of non- compliance with the notice issued seeking certain documents and clarifications. From the records, it is evident that only one effective opportunity was granted to the assessee. The interest of natural justice cannot be served by rejecting the application of the assessee by allowing only one opportunity. Though the Ld. CIT(E) has mentioned in the order that notices were issued from time of time, we don’t find reference of any notice other than the notice dated 24.02.2026. Considering that the assessee is a charitable trust seeking registration under the provisions of the Act and that the issue relates to the examination of its objects and activities, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity

ITA No. 1495/Ahd/2026 Shri Bhadrakali Mataji Seva Trust Vs. CIT(E) deserves to be afforded to the assessee to place the requisite material before the Ld. CIT(E). The principles of natural justice require that a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard be granted before an adverse decision is taken. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the application, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee shall furnish all the documents, explanations and evidences as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(E) and shall fully cooperate in the proceedings. The Ld. CIT(E) shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo consideration. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 12/06/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated – 12th June, 2026 (True Copy) Neelesh, Sr. PS आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT,

ITA No. 1495/Ahd/2026 Shri Bhadrakali Mataji Seva Trust Vs. CIT(E)

6.

गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →