SHRI SWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK JAIN TIRTH,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 450/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 April 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bona fide reasons and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case and substantiate the genuineness of its activities.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-compliance with notices and failure to furnish required documents, also cancelling the provisional registration.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was justified due to non-compliance, and if the assessee deserved another opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 02.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.450/Ahd/2026 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Shri Swetamber Murtipujak Vs. Commissioner of Jain Tirth, Income Tax (Exemption), Paroli PO Parili, Ghoghamba, Ahmedabad Panchmahal, Gujarat-389001 [PAN No.AALTS4632F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jignesh Parikh, AR Respondent by: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 02.04.2026 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), (in short “Ld. CIT(E)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 13.12.2024.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT erred in law and in the facts of the case in rejecting the application for registration under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the act. 2. The Ld. CIT erred in law and in the facts of the case in rejecting present application filed in Form No. 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and the provisional registration which was granted earlier. 3. The appellant craves the permission for making any alteration or addition in the grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration/approval under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The

ITA No. 450/Ahd/2026 Shri Swetamber Murtipujak Jain Tirth vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 2– assessee had earlier been granted provisional registration under section 12A vide order dated 23.09.2021 effective from A.Y. 2022-23. During the course of proceedings, the learned CIT (Exemptions) issued notices dated 06.09.2024 and 25.10.2024 asking for details and documents as prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, like audited financial statements and note on activities. The assessee sought adjournment which was granted, however, thereafter no further compliance was made. Considering that the limitation period for passing the order was expiring, the CIT (Exemptions) proceeded to decide the application on the basis of material available on record. The CIT (Exemptions) observed that the assessee failed to furnish essential documents such as audited accounts for F.Y. 2020-21 to 2023-24 and note on activities, which were necessary to examine the genuineness of activities and compliance with objects. Relying on the provisions of section 12AB and judicial precedents like CIT v. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat (Civil Appeal No. 2492 of 2014) and New Noble Educational Society v. CCIT (Civil Appeal No. 3795 of 2014), the CIT (Exemptions) held that he was not satisfied regarding the genuineness of activities and accordingly rejected the application and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier to the assessee.

4.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT (Exemptions) dismissing the application of the assessee.

5.

At the outset, we observe that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along-with an Affidavit for delay of 355 days in filing of the present appeal. Considering the detailed reasons given in the affidavit viz. that the managing trustee was undergoing severe

ITA No. 450/Ahd/2026 Shri Swetamber Murtipujak Jain Tirth vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 3– mental stress due to ongoing criminal proceedings before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and was continuously engaged in legal defence, resulting in inability to comply with notices as well as delay in filing the appeal, we find that the delay has occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delay so as to advance substantial justice. Respectfully following the same, and considering that no mala fide or deliberate negligence is attributable to the assessee, the delay of 355 days is condoned in the interest of justice and the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that the application of the assessee has been rejected primarily on account of non-compliance with notices issued by the CIT (Exemptions). However, from the affidavit filed by the assessee, it is evident that the non-compliance was not deliberate but was due to circumstances beyond the control of the managing trustee, who was preoccupied with serious legal proceedings and mental distress. In such circumstances, the assessee could not furnish the required details within the stipulated time. In our considered view, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case and substantiate the genuineness of its activities.

7.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) has held that where proper opportunity

ITA No. 450/Ahd/2026 Shri Swetamber Murtipujak Jain Tirth vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 4– of hearing has not been effectively availed due to reasonable cause, the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication. Similarly, in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), it has been held that denial of adequate opportunity amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

8.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we restore the matter to the file of CIT (Exemptions) with a direction to adjudicate the application afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all relevant documents which the assessee may furnish. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and file necessary details without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 23/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →