VIRGINIA TECH INDIA RESEARCH & EDUCATION FORUM,TIRUVALLUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 3, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4512/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 October 20264 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the belated filing and no laches attributable to the assessee. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) was ex-parte and the application was rejected for non-furnishing of the registration certificate under Section 12A/12AA granted under the erstwhile regime. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for one more opportunity to furnish the relevant certificate. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal held that the assessee deserved another opportunity. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish necessary documents and evidences. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Virginia Tech India Research & Education Forum, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, against an order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's Form No. 10AB filed for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 82 days. The assessee explained the delay by stating that its initial application for renewal under Section 12AB was rejected for not furnishing a prior registration certificate. It then filed a fresh application on 31.03.2026, but the CIT(E) informed it that the previous order was under appeal and the subsequent application could not be processed. The assessee then filed the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal should be condoned? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without affording a reasonable opportunity to furnish the requisite documents? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 12AB). Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee pursuing an alternative remedy by filing a fresh application before the CIT(E). - The application for registration was rejected without providing a reasonable opportunity to furnish the required registration certificate under the erstwhile regime (Section 12A/12AA) and to represent its case. - The assessee prayed for one more opportunity to produce the erstwhile registration certificate before the CIT(E) and substantiate its claim. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records that the Learned Departmental Representative (DR) was duly heard, but does not detail specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A,Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R 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 (DIN No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1088057565(1)) dated 28.03.2026, rejecting Form No.10AB filed for seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’).

- 2 - ITA No.4512/CHNY/2026 Virginia Tech India Research & Education Form 2. There is a delay of 82 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the delay, duly supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the same. It is stated that the assessee’s application dated 30.09.2025 for renewal of registration u/s.12AB of the Act was rejected by the CIT(E), vide order dated 28.03.2026, on the ground that the assessee had not furnished a copy of the registration certificate that was in force prior to 01.04.2021. Consequently, the assessee filed a fresh application before the CIT(E) on 31.03.2026, along with the erstwhile registration certificate. It is further submitted that, during the personal hearing held on 04.08.2026, the CIT(E) informed the assessee that the order dated 28.03.2026 was impugned before the Tribunal and, therefore, the subsequent application could not be acted upon. The assessee accordingly approached the Tribunal by filing the present appeal. It was contended that the delay occurred as the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy by filing a fresh application before the CIT(E). On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

- 3 - ITA No.4512/CHNY/2026 Virginia Tech India Research & Education Form 3. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(E) disposed of the assessee’s application ex-parte on the ground that the assessee had neither responded to the show-cause notice nor furnished the requisite documents. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s application was rejected for non-furnishing of the registration certificate u/s. 12A/12AA granted under the erstwhile regime, prior to 01.04.2021. It was contended that the application was rejected without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish the requisite document and represent its case. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to produce the erstwhile registration certificate before the CIT(E) and substantiate its claim.

4.

The Ld.DR was duly heard.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) is ex-parte. The application was rejected on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the registration certificate under section 12A/12AA granted under the erstwhile regime, prior to 01.04.2021. The Ld. AR has sought one more opportunity to furnish the relevant certificate before the CIT(E). In the interest of

- 4 - ITA No.4512/CHNY/2026 Virginia Tech India Research & Education Form substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish the necessary documents and evidences in support of its claim. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th October,2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (गगन गोयल) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 15th October, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.10.16 17:05:07 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →