GAYATRI PARIVAR TRUST,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

ITA 122/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 September 2026AY 2024-257 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal, finding that the reasons provided, supported by a medical certificate, constituted 'sufficient & bonafide cause' preventing the appellant from filing in time, relying on the jurisdictional High Court decision in 'Neel Kumar Ajmera Vs PCIT'. Regarding the rejection of the registration application, the Tribunal held that the rejection was predominantly due to the want of evidential documents and the appellant's failure to explain the fulfillment of conditions for registration under Section 10(23C)(ii). The Tribunal noted that the non-compliance was accidental and undeliberate. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration. The assessee is to be granted an effective opportunity to adduce fresh documents as directed by the CIT(E) and to rectify the application if law permits. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gayatri Parivar Trust, filed an appeal against an order dated 20/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal, rejecting its application for registration under Section 10(23C)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application was filed seeking registration for five years after having been granted provisional registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi). The rejection occurred due to the assessee's failure to annex required documents and make good deficiencies despite notices issued on 12/09/2024, 30/09/2024, and a final opportunity on 17/10/2024. The assessee sought condonation of a 62-day delay in filing the appeal, citing medical treatment of its representative. The Tribunal condoned the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of sufficient cause? Assessee's Contention: The delay was accidental and undeliberate, attributable to the medical treatment of the representative handling the registration matters. A medical certificate was submitted to support this claim. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative could 'hardly displace' the reasons provided for the delay. 2. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 10(23C)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was justified, or if a remand for de-novo consideration is warranted? Assessee's Contention: The assessee prayed for a remand with an undertaking to comply with the provisions of Section 17K read with Section 12AB to enable the CIT(E) to decide the registration on merits. Revenue's Contention: The judgment notes that the Revenue 'could hardly assail the submission and prayer of the appellant nor it pull apart the existence of bonafide prayer with any deprecative material, so as to deny an opportunity to the appellant assessee.'

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(iii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi),Section 12AB,Section 17K

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, MP

Before: HON’BLE SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Mr Dhiraj Ghai [‘Ld. AR’]
For Respondent: Mr Dhananjay Wanjari [‘Ld. DR’]
Pronounced: 29/09/2026

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal is filed by the assessee impugns the DIN & Order No.

ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071405437(1) dt. 20/12/2024

passed u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal whereby

application seeking grant registration u/s 10(23C)(iii) of the Act

was rejected.

ITAT-Jabalpur Gayatri Parivar Trust Vs CIT(E)

2.

The Ld. AR identifying the delay of 62 days in filing the present appeal at the outset of hearing submitted that, the appeal is time barred and the reasons attributable to Mr Tiwari’s medical treatment who was loo

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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

All 429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →