THE BETHEL PENTECOST ASSEMBLY IN INDIA,GUMMIDIPOONDI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

ITA 3917/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 September 20267 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal. Based on the uncontroverted affidavit filed by the assessee, which was supported by the legal position laid down in M. Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V. Laxmi Narain Rao, the Tribunal found reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the registration application solely because the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued on February 6, 2026, and the impugned order was passed on March 16, 2026. The Tribunal held that this period of approximately one month did not afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a de novo disposal of the application, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Bethel Pentecost Assembly in India, a religious trust, applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on September 26, 2025. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai (CIT(E)), requested information on December 27, 2025, to ascertain the charitable nature and genuineness of the trust's activities. The assessee did not comply with these notices. Subsequently, a deficiency letter was issued on December 27, 2025, which also remained uncompiled. A show cause notice was issued on February 6, 2026, but the assessee did not respond. Consequently, the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration on March 16, 2026. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, Chennai, with a delay of 44 days, citing medical reasons for the founder and pastor's inability to manage records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? - Assessee's Contention: The delay of 44 days was due to the founder and pastor's Lumbar Disc Disorder, preventing him from managing the trust's affairs and records. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M. Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V. Laxmi Narain Rao (AIR 1973 SC 627) regarding uncontroverted affidavits. - Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Learned CIT-DR opposed the submissions regarding the delay. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on account of non-submission of documents without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard? - Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that no reasonable opportunity was given and prayed for the matter to be remanded to the CIT(E) for de novo disposal. They also contended that the non-compliance was not wilful or deliberate but due to unavoidable medical reasons, and that the CIT(E) failed to adjudicate on merits. - Revenue's Contention: The Learned CIT-DR opposed the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES,

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE- & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Chennai denying grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.03.2026

1 THE BETHEL PENTECOST ASSEMBLY IN INDIA [A]

2.

The Assessee raised these following grounds of appeal :

“1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The learned Commissi

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 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →