SUDHA EDUCATION TRUST,RAJKOT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 612/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 June 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that rejecting the application after allowing only one opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to allow the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the application for non-compliance with a request for details, despite the assessee claiming to have submitted all required documents and holding prior registration.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the registration application under Section 12AB without providing adequate opportunity for compliance violates principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

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

For Appellant: Shri Bakul Ganatra, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Hearing: 20/05/2026Pronounced: 12/06/2026

PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 08.03.2026 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.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an application for registration of the Trust u/s. 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) had called for certain details 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 compliance was made by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the application of the assessee

- 2 - ITA No.612/Rjt/2026 Sudha Education Trust

vide the impugned order dated 08.03.2026 and the provisional registration granted earlier was also cancelled.

3.

Aggrieved with the rejection order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application in Form 10AB under section 12AB(1)(b) without appreciating that all documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) were already filed along with the application.

2.

The Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in holding that the appellant failed to establish genuineness of activities despite audited financial statements evidencing running of educational institutions.

3.

The Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in ignoring that the appellant trust was already holding valid registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) vide URN AABTS0193HE20215 valid up to AY 2026-27.

4.

The Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in treating the proceedings as fresh registration proceedings instead of continuation proceedings.

5.

The Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in stating that provisional registration stood cancelled though the appellant was holding regular registration.

6.

The Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in concluding that activities were not genuine without conducting any enquiry.

7.

The Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in concluding that activities were not in consonance with objects without identifying any instance of deviation.

8.

The impugned order is bad in law for violation of principles of natural justice.

9.

The impugned order is bad in law for want of valid service of notice under section 282 read with section 282A and Rule 127.

10.

The Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in ignoring documents already available on record.

11.

The Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in invoking section 115TD without jurisdiction.

- 3 - ITA No.612/Rjt/2026 Sudha Education Trust

12.

The impugned order is non-speaking and passed without application of mind. 13. The order deserves to be set aside and registration under section 12AB be granted.”

4.

Shri Bakul Ganatra, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) had allowed only one opportunity on 21.02.2026. The notice was sent on the e-mail but the trustees of the assessee trust were not 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).

5.

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.

6.

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

- 4 - ITA No.612/Rjt/2026 Sudha Education Trust

directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(E) and produce the documents and evidences as required by the Trust.

7.

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 ak आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध , आयकर अपील(य अ�धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड. फाईल /Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकारDy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजोकट / ITAT, Rajkot

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →