SHREE SHIV GAUSHALA TRUST,MORVI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRSAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.580/Rjt/2026 (Assessment Year: NA) Shree Shiv Gaushala Vs. Commissioner of Income Trust, Tax (Exemption), RavechiKrupa, Boricha Ahmedabad Vas, Jain Road, Morvi, Gujarat-363641 [PAN No.AANTS0916Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Manalee N. Kamdar, Ld. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. 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 09.03.2026 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 - ITA No.580/Rjt/2026 Asst.Year – N.A. compliance was made by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the application of the assessee vide the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 and the provisional registration granted earlier was also cancelled.

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(E) has erred in passing the impugned order dated 09/03/2026 rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB without providing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 2. The learned CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that the notice dated 24/02/2026 was not served on the correct and updated email ID of the Appellant, but was sent to the email ID of the previous Chartered Accountant, and hence the service of notice is not valid in the eyes of law. 3. The learned CIT(E) has further erred in stating that the Appellant has neither filed any submission nor sought adjournment, whereas the Appellant had in fact filed an adjournment request, which was duly acknowledged by the department on the registered email ID. 4. The learned CIT(E) has erred in passing the order without issuing any further notice or providing another opportunity after the adjournment request, thereby denying the Appellant a fair chance to present its case. 5. The learned CIT(E) has rejected the application without examining the objects and activities of the trust and without verifying the genuineness of its charitable activities, which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 12AB. 6. The impugned order has been passed in a summary manner and without proper application of mind, and is therefore bad in law. 7. The Appellant submits that the order passed by the learned CIT(E) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing” 4. Ms. Manalee N. Kamdar, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) had allowed only one opportunity on 24.02.2026. The notice was sent on the e-mail but the trustees of the assessee trust were not

- 3 - ITA No.580/Rjt/2026 Asst.Year – N.A. regular in accessing the e-mail account. Further, they were not conversant with the procedural requirement for filing details online, and as a result no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. AR 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). 4. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Punglia, the Ld. CIT-DR, had no objection if the matter was set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee. 5. We have considered the request of the assessee. The present application was filed for registration of the trust u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) had allowed only one opportunity to the assessee for furnishing certain details and thereafter the application of the assessee was rejected. The interest of natural justice cannot be served by rejecting the application by allowing only one opportunity. Therefore, in the interest Principle of Natural Justice, we, therefore, deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with direction to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(E) and produce the documents and evidences as required by the Trust. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 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 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY

- 4 - ITA No.580/Rjt/2026 Asst.Year – N.A. आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��थ� / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील / The CIT(A)- ( ) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजोकट / ITAT, Rajkot