SHREE RAMKRUSHNA MANDIR TRUST,KALOL vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1010/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(E) rejecting its application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the rejection was mechanical and without proper opportunity to present its case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) rejected the registration application without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri H V Doshi, A.R, Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR
For Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR
Pronounced: 07/05/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”), Ahmedabad dated 09.03.2026.

ITA No.1010/Ahd/2026 [Shree Ramkrushna Mandir Trust vs. CIT(E) - 2 – 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(E) in rejecting the application of the assessee trust for the registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee trust for renewal of the registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the Act without giving proper opportunity to the assessee trust to present its case and even without considering the relevant details and submissions already furnished by the assessee on record. Ld. Counsel has submitted that only one opportunity was granted by the Ld. CIT(E) to furnish the requisite details against which the assessee trust filed the requisite details, however, the Ld. CIT(E) without considering the same rejected the application of the assessee in a mechanical manner.

4.

Considering the above submissions and going through the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E), we are of the view that interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee be given an opportunity to present its case before the Ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) in relation of the application is hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for decision afresh on the application of the assessee. Needless to say that the Ld.CIT(E) will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and, thereafter, will

ITA No.1010/Ahd/2026 [Shree Ramkrushna Mandir Trust vs. CIT(E) - 3 –

decide the application on merits in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee trust is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced on 07/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 07/05/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. 5. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B)

All 71 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →