SIDDICK HAJEE AHMED SAIT PRIVATE FAMILY TRUST,COONOOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI

ITA 3165/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 October 2026AY 2027-283 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the order passed by the CIT(E) was ex-parte and that the application was rejected for non-response to the show-cause notice and non-furnishing of documents. The assessee's plea for one more opportunity was considered. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee deserved another chance to present its case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit necessary documents and evidence. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Siddick Hajee Ahmed Sait Pvt. Family Trust, filed an appeal against an order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai. The CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's Form No.10AB, filed for seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a family-managed charitable trust established on 26.02.1935 and was originally granted registration under Section 12A on 30.11.2007. The CIT(E)'s order was ex-parte, passed on the grounds that the assessee neither responded to the show-cause notice nor furnished requisite documents. The assessee contended that the rejection was without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejecting the assessee's Form No.10AB for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when it was passed ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned order was ex-parte and that the rejection of its application for registration was made without providing a reasonable opportunity to present its case and furnish necessary documents. The assessee, a charitable trust, sought one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(E). Revenue's Contention: The Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the CIT(E).

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, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 08.10.2026

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai dated 27.03.2026, rejecting Form No.10AB filed for seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’). Siddick Hajee Ahmed Sait Pvt. Family Trust

2.

At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the CIT(E) is an ex-parte order. The appeal came to be disposed of ex-parte

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 →