PRALEEN PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in law by failing to give sufficient opportunity to file documentary evidences/submissions and only giving one email letter on 23/01/2026, which was missed by the trustee due to inadvertent oversight, and hence violation of principle of natural justice in rejecting renewal application u/s 12A.

The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in law and on facts rejected renewal application u/s 12A without giving show cause notice and hence required to be remanded back to CIT(Exemption).

The learned CIT(Exemption) ought to have seen that the Trust has been in existence since 1995, already registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G since 01/04/1996 and renewed till AY 2026-27, and hence rejection of renewal application u/s 12A without giving opportunity is bad in law.

The learned CIT(Exemption) ought to have seen that appellant had already filed Trust Deed, Charity Commissioner Certificate. Approval u/s 12AA and u/s 80G from Income Tax Department, 3 years audited financial statements and hence rejection of renewal application u/s 12A is bad in law without providing any adverse remarks or observations.

The learned CIT (Exemption) ought to have seen that under proviso to section 12AA(1A) for procedure of registration, it is clearly written that no order shall be passed unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity and hence rejection order is required to be quashed.

The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify. delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

The Appellant prays leave to adduce such further evidence to substantiate its case, as the occasion may demand.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in law by failing to give sufficient opportunity to file documentary evidences / submissions and only giving one email letter on 24/01/2026, which was missed by the trustee due to inadvertent oversight, and hence violation of principle of natural justice in rejecting renewal application u/s 80G.

The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in law and on facts rejected renewal application u/s 80G without giving show cause notice and hence required to be remanded back to CIT(Exemption).

The learned CIT(Exemption) ought to have seen that the Trust has been in existence since 1995, already registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G since 01/04/1996 and renewed till AY 2026-27, and hence rejection of renewal application u/s 80G without giving opportunity is bad in law.

The learned CIT(Exemption) ought to have seen that appellant had already filed Trust Deed. Charity Commissioner Certificate, Approval u/s 12AA and u/s 80G from Income Tax Department, 3 years audited financial statements and hence rejection of renewal application u/s 80G is bad in law without providing any adverse remarks or observations.

The learned CIT(E) ought to have seen that under clause (b) of proviso to section 80G(5) for procedure of registration, it is clearly written that no order shall be passed unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity and hence rejection order is required to be quashed.

The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

The Appellant prays leave to adduce such further evidence to substantiate its case, as the occasion may demand.

The facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust and had applied for registration under Form No.10AB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the I.T

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.

At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee on the ground that that the assessee-trust has neither filed any submission nor sought any adjournment. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed that given an opportunity, the same would be apprised to the Ld.CIT(E). Ld. CIT(DR) argued that the assessee-trust needs to furnish requisite details/explanations and submissions before the Ld. CIT(E). Having considered the facts on record, we hold that interests of justice would be well served by remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration of the application afresh and to pass an order by taking into consideration the submissions /explanations submitted by the assessee.

Since we have remanded the issue to the Ld.CIT(E) in ITA No.1366/Ahd/2026 against rejecting of application u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, we also set-aside the issue for approval of registration u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act in ITA No.1367/Ahd/2026 for fresh consideration.

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

Date of dictation …17.06.2026….. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 18.06.2026 3. Other Member… 29.06.2026 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S … 29.06.2026…………. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 30.06.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S ……30.06.2026……………. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ……..30.06.2026……….…. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………