MUSCULO SKELETAL ONCOLOGY SOCIETY,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2768/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had issued only one email notice, which did not come to the assessee's attention, leading to an ex-parte rejection. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) concerning the application and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide a proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and then decide the application on merits in accordance with the law. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Musculo Skeletal Oncology Society, filed an appeal against the order dated 08.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2026-27. The assessee is aggrieved by the rejection of its application for renewal of registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the CIT(E) issued only one notice via email seeking details and explanations regarding the genuineness of its activities. However, this email did not come to the notice of the trustees, leading to the assessee's absence before the CIT(E). Consequently, the CIT(E) rejected the application ex-parte without further opportunity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for renewal of registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(E) was justified, considering the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to present its case? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(E) issued only a single email notice which was not received by the trustees. As a result, the assessee could not represent its case. The CIT(E) proceeded to reject the application ex-parte without providing any further opportunity. The assessee relied on the principle of natural justice, implying that an opportunity to be heard is fundamental. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GANGADHAR PANDA

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Jimit, A.R, Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR
For Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR
Hearing: 29/09/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”), Ahmedabad dated 08.03.2026. ITA No.2768/Ahd/2026 [Musculo Skeletal Oncology Society vs. CIT-E] - 2 –

2.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(E) in rejecting the application of the assessee trust for the renewal of registration u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

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

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →