SRI CHIKKENAKOPPA CHANNAVEERATATA BALAGA (R),BALLARI, KARNATAKA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2184/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for a last opportunity due to inadvertent non-response, remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The assessee was cautioned against seeking further adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected the applications after the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices and show cause notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the applications for registration due to non-compliance, and if a final opportunity should be granted to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri. Jayant Bothra, CA
For Respondent: Shri. N. S. Shashidhara, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 26.05.2026Pronounced: 27.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2184, 2185/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : NA Shri. Chikkenakoppa Vs. CIT(Exemptions), Channaveeratata Balaga (R), Bengaluru. Kottureshwara Maternity Home Kampli, Kampli Hospet, Ballari – 583 132. PAN : AATTS 6904 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Jayant Bothra, CA Revenue by : Shri. N. S. Shashidhara, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 26.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2026 O R D E R Per Balakrishnan S, Accountant Member :

These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangalore [in short “CIT(E)”] vide DIN & Notice Nos.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1080287194(1) and ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1080287242(1) both orders dated 03.09.2025 rejecting the registration under section 12AB and 80G of the Act. Since the assessee is same, these appeals are combined and consolidated order is passed.

2.

First, we take up the appeal in ITA No.2184/Bang/2025 and the facts culled out from them.

ITA Nos.2184, 2185/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6

3.

Briefly stated facts of the case are assessee filed an application for registration under section 12AB of the Act in Form No.10AB dated 20.03.2025. The learned CIT(E) processed the application and provided opportunity of being heard to the assessee vide notice dated 26.07.2025. Assessee has not responded to the notice. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 19.08.2025 was issued to the assessee for which assessee again failed to respond. Thereafter, the learned CIT(E) considering the non-compliance by the assessee to submit the necessary details as required for registration under section 12AB of the Act, proceeded to reject the application for registration filed on 20.03.2025.

4.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(E), assessee is in appeal before by raising following grounds:

1.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. CIT(E)’) erred in rejecting the application made in reference to Item No. (B) of sub-clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the act’) for registration of the appellant trust. 2. That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application of the appellant trust on account of non-appearance and non-filing of requisite documents being said non-appearance was not attributable to willful default on the part of the management of the appellant trust but the same was on account of negligence of tax consultant engaged for said assignment. 3. That the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the application of the appellant trust without appreciating the prevailing reasonable cause for non- appearance and thereby, the appellant trust hereby request for another opportunity to present its case before Ld. CIT(E). 4. That the Ld. CIT(E) had erred in cancelling the provisional registration accorded to the appellant trust in 2023 without appreciating the fact that the appellant trust had commenced its charitable activities and has been carrying out its activities in

ITA Nos.2184, 2185/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6

accordance with the objects of the trust and thereby, no valid reason for rejection of provisional registration arises. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter 0R DELETE any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.

5.

At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative [in short ‘AR’] submitted that assessee failed to respond to the notice inadvertently and prayed for an opportunity before the learned CIT(E) to submit the documents required for registration under section 12AB of the Act.

6.

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative [in short ‘DR’] strongly objected to the remanding back to the learned CIT(E) and stated that learned CIT(E) has provided multiple opportunities for which assessee remained non-compliant. He therefore pleaded that the order of the learned CIT(E) be upheld.

7.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the learned CIT(E) has offered various opportunities on 26.07.2025 and 09.08.2025 seeking the assessee to furnish the documents supporting the registration under section 12AB of the Act. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices issued by the learned CIT(E). Considering the prayer of AR, in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the opinion that, as prayed by the learned AR, one more last opportunity may be provided to the assessee to furnish the necessary documents for registration under section 12AB of the Act. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application for registration under section 12AB of the Act. At the same breath we also caution the assessee not to seek any unnecessary adjournments during the remand proceedings failing which the learned CIT(E) is at liberty to decide the case as per the material available on

ITA Nos.2184, 2185/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6

record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

ITA No.2185/Bang/2025: Brief facts of the case in this appeal are assessee filed an application for registration under section 80G of the Act. The learned CIT(E) processed the application and provided opportunity of being heard to the assessee vide notice dated 26.07.2025. Assessee has not responded to the notice. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 09.08.2025 was issued to the assessee for which assessee again failed to respond. Thereafter, the learned CIT(E) considering the non-compliance by the assessee to submit the necessary details as required for registration under section 80G of the Act, proceeded to reject the application for registration filed on 20.03.2025.

10.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(E), assessee is in appeal before by raising following grounds:

1.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. CIT(E)’) erred in rejecting the application made in reference to sub-clause (B) of section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the act’) for registration of the appellant trust. 2. That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application of the appellant trust on account of non-appearance and non-filing of requisite documents being said non-appearance was not attributable to willful default on the part of the management of the appellant trust but the same was on account of negligence of tax consultant engaged for said assignment.

ITA Nos.2184, 2185/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6

3.

That the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the application of the appellant trust without appreciating the prevailing reasonable cause for non- appearance and thereby, the appellant trust hereby request for another opportunity to present its case before Ld. CIT(E). 4. That the Ld. CIT(E) had erred in cancelling the provisional registration accorded to the appellant trust in 2023 without appreciating the fact that the appellant trust had commenced its charitable activities and has been carrying out its activities in accordance with the objects of the trust and thereby, no valid reason for rejection of provisional registration arises. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter 0R DELETE any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.

11.

At the outset of hearing, the AR submitted that assessee failed to respond to the notice inadvertently and prayed for an opportunity before the learned CIT(E) to submit the documents required for registration under section 80G of the Act.

12.

Per contra, the learned DR strongly objected to the remanding back to the learned CIT(E) and stated that learned CIT(E) has provided multiple opportunities for which assessee remained non-compliant. He therefore pleaded that the order of the learned CIT(E) be upheld.

13.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the learned CIT(E) has offered various opportunities on 26.07.2025 and 09.08.2025 seeking the assessee to furnish the documents supporting the registration under section 80G of the Act. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices issued by the learned CIT(E). Considering the prayer of AR, in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the opinion that as prayed by the learned AR, one more last opportunity may be provided to the assessee to furnish the necessary documents for registration under

ITA Nos.2184, 2185/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 6

section 80G of the Act. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application for registration under section 80G of the Act at the same breath we also caution the assessee not to seek any unnecessary adjournments during the assessment proceedings failing which the learned CIT(E) is at liberty to decide the case as per the material available on record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

14.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

15.

In the combined result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (BALAKRISHNAN S) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore. Dated: 27.05.2026. /NS/*

Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →