SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR ,SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CIT(EXEMPTION)
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. It directed the CIT(E) to either treat the application as filed under the correct sub-provision or allow the assessee to file a rectified application, with an opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act was rejected by the CIT(E) due to being filed under the wrong sub-provision. The assessee contended this was an inadvertent error and they were not given an opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of the registration application due to a technical defect without providing an opportunity to be heard was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the Order, dated 17/01/2026, passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’], whereby the application filed by the Assessee in Form No.10AB under Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] was rejected.
There is a delay of 36 days in filing the preset appeal. We have taken into consideration the explanation offered by the Assessee for delay in filing the present appeal. We are of the view that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the present appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987 (2) SCR 387], we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee prayed for setting-aside of the impugned order and contended that the application filed by the Assessee was dismissed on account of technical defect without examining the merits. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted the aforesaid application was rejected on the ground that the same filed under wrong provision [i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)] applicable to charitable organization already holding regular registration and seeking renewal of the same. The grievance of the Assessee is that the Assessee was not put to notice about the defect in the application and the order rejecting application was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Per Contra, Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Learned CIT(E) contending that the application was filed by the Assessee under incorrect provision and therefore, there was no infirmity in the rejection order passed by the Learned CIT(E).
We have considered the rival submission, perused the material on record and examined the position in law.
It is the case of the Assessee that the application was intended to be made under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. However, inadvertently, the application was filed under incorrect provision [Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)] by selection incorrect option while filling the relevant form electronically. Since the Assessee was not confronted with defect in the application, the Assessee was not able to explain before the Learned CIT(E) that the aforesaid inadvertent mistake had occurred while filing the application in the prescribed form. We note that no notice of hearing was issued to the Assessee. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it 2 appropriate and in the interest of justice to grant another opportunity to the Assessee to make out a case for renewal of registration in terms of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(E) and restore the application filed by the Assessee to its original number. The Learned CIT(E) is directed to either treat the application filed by the Assessee as application filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act or grant opportunity to the Assessee to file rectified application. It is clarified that the Learned CIT(E) would be at liberty to decide upon the merits of the application as per law after granting the Assessee an opportunity to make submission and file documents/details in support of the said application. All rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open. In terms of the aforesaid, all the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In terms of paragraph above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced on 21.08.2026 (Dr. B.R.R. Kumar) Judicial Member
िदनांक Dated : 21.08.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad;H.C. PS
3 आदेशक""ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""यथ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Adhishthan Community Mental Health and… vs C.I.T. Exemption, PuneITA 2320/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026
- Adhishthan Community Mental Health and Well… vs C.I.T., Exemption, PuneITA 2319/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026
- Hs Ranka Foundation, Mumbai vs CIT (Exemptions), MumbaiITA 7861/MUM/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026