MAR BASELIOS ORTHODOX CHURCH,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 629/SRT/2026Status: HeardITAT Surat12 June 20264 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the renewal application, especially considering a previous order from a coordinate bench that had allowed registration to the assessee. The CIT(E) could not dispute the facts presented.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. After multiple rejections and appeals, a coordinate bench of the ITAT had previously allowed the application for registration in an earlier appeal. The current appeal arises from a subsequent rejection of a renewal application by the CIT(E).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the renewal application for registration under section 12A when a coordinate bench had previously allowed registration to the assessee. Whether the rejection was based on hyper-technical grounds without considering the prior ITAT order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI NARENDRA PRSAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Hiren R. Vepari, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR
Hearing: 20/05/2026Pronounced: 12/06/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRSAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.629/SRT/2026 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Mar Baselios Orthodox Vs. Commissioner of Income Church, Tax (Exemption), Mar Baselios Orthodox Ahmedabad Church, Opp. Magdalla Port Colony, Dumas Road, Magadalla B.O. Magdalla,Surat Gujarat-395007 [PAN No.AAATM3808N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hiren R. Vepari, CA Respondent by : Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement 12/06/2026 O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad (in short “Ld. CIT(E)”) denying registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The registry has noted that there is delay of 22 days in filing the above appeal. The delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is due to second round of application for registration before Ld.CIT(E) and ITAT.

- 2 - ITA No.629/Srt/2026 Mar Baselios Orthodox Chruch vs. CIT(E) Considering the submission, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust filed application for provisional registration u/s. 12AB under the new law effective from 01-04-2021 on 11-11-2021 and Ld. CIT(E) granted provisional registration in Form 10AC dated 18-11-2021. The assessee Trust filed final registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act on 12-08-2022 which was rejected by Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 27-02-2023. Against which assessee filed appeal before ITAT which was set-aside vide order dated 17-07-2023. Ld. CIT(E) rejected the second round of application vide order dated 21-05-2025. The same was challenged by the assessee before ITAT Surat Bench in ITA No. 723/SRT/2025. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal allowed application by observing as follows:

“5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was carrying out the activities as per the audited financials which are identical to that of the objects mentioned in the PTR as well as in the redrafted trust deed. From the perusal of the redrafted deed, the object are not restricted to one particular community only but for all communities without any discrimination based on caste, creed, gender or religion. The CIT(E) could not point out from the financials that the expenditure was incurred for specific community only and not to the general public at large. Thus, it will be appropriate to allow the application of the trust for registration u/s. 12AB. Thus, the rejection is not justifiable and the plea of the applicant is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the applicant/appellant is allowed.” 4. In the meantime, the assessee made renewal application u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) for renewal of u/s. 12A registration. Ld. CIT(E) again rejected vide the impugned order, the assessee did not possess the valid registration and the clause selected by the assessee Trust was u/s.

- 3 - ITA No.629/Srt/2026 Mar Baselios Orthodox Chruch vs. CIT(E) 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and Ld. CIT(E) has no power to alter the application claimed by the assessee.

5.

Ld. CIT(E) vide impugned order rejected the registration and the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:

(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting application of renewal u/s. 12A. (2) The learned CIT(E) rejected the application on the hyper-technical ground and was driven by extraneous considerations. (3) The renewal application u/s. 12A did not hold merit solely on the ground that the appellant's application of first round of 5 years was rejected, when the appeal of the first round was pending adjudication with the Hon'ble ITAT. (4) The learned CIT(E) rejected the application for renewal in post haste without waiting for the outcome of the Hon'ble ITAT. (5) The above grounds are without prejudicial to one another. (6) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal. 6. Ld. Counsel submitted that the application for renewal was made under the correct clause namely u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) as evidenced from the application in Form No. 10AB available at Page Nos. 52 to 60 of the Paper Book. Further Co-ordinate Bench has already granted registration to the assessee Trust vide order dated 16-03-2026 (cited supra). Therefore requested to allow the appeal filed by the assessee Trust.

7.

Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue could not dispute the above facts and the events. Considering the same and the Co-ordinate Bench decision in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 723/SRT/2025 dated 16/03/2026, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed.

- 4 - ITA No.629/Srt/2026 Mar Baselios Orthodox Chruch vs. CIT(E)

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 12.06.2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA P. SINHA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 12/06/2026 Rajesh TRUE COPY आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त ( अपील ) 4. / The CIT(A)- �वभागीय ��त�न�ध , आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 5. गाड� फाईल /Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजोकट / ITAT, Surat

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →