GANAPAS INNOVATIVE GROUP,DAVANAGERE vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 523/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 June 2026AY 2025-263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, applied for registration under Section 12AB but their application was rejected by the CIT(E) for non-response to notices. The assessee explained the delay and non-response due to being in a remote location with limited access to professional advice and email literacy.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of a Section 12AB registration application without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, especially when reasons for non-response are provided, is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Shashikanth H S, CA
For Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 523/Bang/2026 Assessment Year : 2025-26

M/s. Ganapas Innovative Group, 2nd Floor, Sneha Kutira, The Commissioner Nadivalapete, of Income Tax Harihar, Davanagere, (Exemptions), Karnataka – 577 601. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AADTG5118L

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

: Shri Aangiras S Joshi, CA & Assessee by Shri Shashikanth H S, CA Revenue by : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 07-05-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19-06-2026

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 02/09/2025 in which the Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the application filed by the assessee for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust providing financial aid to the poor patients and working with local bodies during natural calamities and same was registered u/s. 12A of the Act.

Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 523/Bang/2026 Subsequently, the assessee had filed an application for the regular registration. The petitioner is in a remote village and therefore they were not having any knowledge about the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) and therefore the assessee has not responded to any of the notices and an order has been issued by the Ld.CIT(E) rejecting the application.

3.

As against the rejection order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 72 days.

4.

The assessee filed an application to condone the said delay and also explained the reasons for not filing the appeal in time. We have considered the said explanations and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the said delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is functioning in a small town where proper professional advice was not available. Further, the assessee trustees are also not conversant with the emails and therefore they were not able to respond to the several notices. The Ld.AR therefore submitted that the assessee is having all the details and prayed to grant an opportunity to submit the same before the Ld.CIT(E).

6.

The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8.

We have considered the fact that the assessee is in the public charitable activities quite for sometime and also got the registration u/s. 12A of the Act. The authorities had also not doubted the genuineness of the activities carried out by the assessee and in such circumstances, the only reason adduced by the Ld.CIT(E) is that the assessee had not responded to the several notices and also not filed the various documents. The assessee

Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 523/Bang/2026 had also explained the reasons for the non-appearance as well as the non- furnishing of the documents. Further, the Ld.CIT(E) had also not granted an opportunity of being heard to the assessee as contemplated u/s. 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act before passing the rejection order.

9.

In such circumstances and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(E) along with the documents. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and remit the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for denovo consideration after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 19th June, 2026. /MS /

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) 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 →