JAMEAH AHMEDIYAH ULOOMUL QURAN,MEHSANA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2582/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 June 20264 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation to be bonafide. The impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh, speaking order after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application in Form 10AB for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee contended that the rejection was hyper-technical and lacked a reasoned examination of merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on a hyper-technical interpretation without examining merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

By way of the present appeal Assessee has challenged the Order, dated 29/12/2024, 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)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] was rejected.

2.

The Assessee has, inter alia, raised the following ground in the present appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT(E) has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant's application in Form 10AB is "non-maintainable" on a hyper- technical interpretation of CBDT Circular No. 07/2024. The Income-tax Act nowhere empowers the CIT(E) to reject an application without examining merits, especially when the Assessment Year NA

applicant is a genuine religious and charitable institution engaged in public utility activities. The impugned order is thus perverse, mechanical and contrary to the scheme of Section 12A(1)(ac).”

3.

We have considered rival submission and have perused the material on record.

4.

It is the case of the Assessee that the trustees managing the day-to- day operations of the Assessee-Trust were not conversant with the income tax legislation and were of bonafide belief that the order passed by Learned CIT(E) was not an appealable order. Further, they did not have access to proper legal advice. Therefore, failed to make proper representation before the Learned CIT(E) and also failed to file appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. It was submitted that delay in filing the present appeal be condoned and since the order passed by the Learned CIT(E) was not a reasoned order, and the same be set-aside granting the Assessee another opportunity.

5.

On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by learned CIT(E) and pointed out that the application filed by the Assessee was rejected since the same was not covered by Paragraph 4.1 of Circular No. 7 of 2024 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Therefore, it cannot be said that the order was not a reasoned order.

6.

We note that the learned CIT(E) has rejected the application filed by the Assessee observing that earlier application filed by the Assessee on 06/06/2022 was rejected and the rejection order was not covered by Circular No.7 of 2024. However, the grounds for rejection of the earlier application filed by the Assessee and reasons for non-applicability of paragraph 4.1 of the Circular have not been mentioned. Be that as it may, the Assessee has sought another opportunity to make proper representation before the learned CIT(E). In our view, interest of justice would be served in case aforesaid plea advance on behalf of the Assessee in this regard is accepted. Accordingly, accepting the 2 Assessment Year NA

explanation offered by the Assessee for delay in fling the present appeal as bonafide and reasonable, we hold that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the present appeal within prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay 350 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The impugned Order, dated 29/12/2024, passed by the Learned CIT(E) is set-aside with direction to re-examine the entire issue afresh and pass a speaking order after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed to file written submissions placing complete set of facts along with supporting evidence/documents before the Learned CIT(E) for consideration. The Assessee is also directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal. In terms of the aforesaid, the Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous at this stage. It is clarified that since we have restored the application back to the file of the Learned CIT(E) without returning any findings on merits, all the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open. The Learned CIT(E) would also be at liberty to adjudicate the application as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

7.

In result, in terms of paragraph 6 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 22.06.2026, (Dr. BRR Kumar) Judicial Member

िदनांकDated :22.06.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad;H.C. PS

3 Assessment Year NA

आदेशक""ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

2.

""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)

All 537 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →