CHOKSHI NATVARLAL VACHHRACHARITABLE TRUST,JUNAGADH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2 , RAJKOT

For the sake of convenience, we first take up ITA No.375/RJT/2026.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust incorporated on 02.03.2000, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act (Registration No. E-4460). The trust has been registered u/s 12A and approval under section 80G since its inception. The trust has regularly filed its income tax returns within the prescribed time, its accounts are duly audited, and scrutiny assessments have been completed without any additions. The appellant applied for renewal/re-registration under section 12A along with all necessary documents. According to the assessee, no notice seeking further details was ever served upon the trust. The Ld. CIT (E), Ahmedabad, by order dated 07.03.2026, rejected the renewal application on the ground of alleged non- compliance with notices calling for details. The appellant contends that the order was passed ex-parte, without proper opportunity of being heard and without proper application of mind. A copy of the rejection order was received by the appellant through email on 08.03.2026. The appellant submits that the rejection order is illegal and bad in law, and has therefore preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal.

On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E), fairly submitted that he has not serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), subject to the condition that assessee’s will file supported documents during the remand proceeding.

We have heard, the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record. We notices that application of the assessee was rejected primary on account of non-furnishing of the supporting documents and non-compliance with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). Considering the explanations offered by the assessee and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair place we set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to examine the application afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the supporting documents and details as may be

As regard ITA No.376/RJT/2026, both party fairly submitted that facts and circumstances involved therein are identical to those considered by us in ITA No.375/RJT/2026, the only difference is that the appeal relates to rejection of registration u/s 80G of the Act. Since, the issues involved is identical and are findings in ITA No. ITA No.375/RJT/2026 applied mutatis mutandis to this appeals as well. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after granting the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.