PREM PUNITA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4973/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 October 20264 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The reasoning was based on the totality of facts and circumstances, particularly the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the non-receipt of notices due to outdated email IDs on the Income-tax portal. The Tribunal acknowledged that the non-participation was not deliberate or intentional and that the assessee was now prepared to furnish all relevant documents and explanations. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order, especially concerning registration under Section 12AB, should be set aside if the assessee demonstrates a lack of opportunity due to genuine technical or procedural lapses, provided the assessee is willing to cooperate and present its case. The operative direction was to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Prem Punita Foundation, filed an appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], Mumbai. The CIT(E) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The assessee contended that the dismissal occurred without a proper opportunity to present its case, primarily due to non-compliance related to incorrect email IDs on the Income-tax portal. These incorrect email IDs belonged to a former employee and an earlier consultant, preventing the assessee from receiving notices from the CIT(E)'s office in a timely manner. Consequently, the assessee could not participate in the proceedings or furnish required details regarding its objects and activities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(E) was dismissed without providing adequate opportunity, thereby violating principles of natural justice, concerning the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that its appeal was dismissed ex-parte without a proper opportunity to explain its case. The dismissal was primarily for non-compliance, without examining the trust's objects. The incorrect email IDs on the Income-tax portal, belonging to a former employee and an earlier consultant, led to non-receipt of notices, making participation and submission of details impossible. This non-participation was neither deliberate nor intentional. The assessee relied on an affidavit from a trustee explaining these circumstances and prayed for the matter to be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & MR. G.M. DOSS

Pronounced: 14/10/2026

PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(E) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex- parte.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte without providing proper opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that primarily the case was dismissed for non-compliance without examining the objects of the trust. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for considering the application for registration filed by the assessee afresh.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of the affidavit of Shri Harish Kumar Mitall, who is a trustee of Prem Foundation, explaining the contents as under:

“Harish Kumar Mittal S/o Late Shri Prem Nath, aged 77 years, residing at 279, Railway Road. Muzaffarnagar. 25100i, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA, being the Trustee / Authorized Representative of Prem Punita Foundation, PAN: AAATP9962G, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. That the appellant had filed an application for registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). Mumbai. 2. That as per the profile of the appellant on the Income-tax portal, the e-mail IDs reflected therein were avinash@prempunita.org and ca_dahir@yahoo.co.in, which pertain to an earlier employee, Mr. Avinash, and the earlier consultant / Chartered Accountant respectively, and are not the current e-mail IDs of the appellant.

3.

That a screenshot of the "My Profile" section of the Income-tax portal reflecting the above e-mail IDs is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A. 4. That during the course of the proceedings, certain notices were issued by the office of the learned CIT(E), which, in the above circumstances, did not come to the attention of the appellant in time. 5. That consequently, the appellant could not participate in the proceedings or furnish the requisite details before the learned CIT(E). 6. That the appellant was thus not in a position to present its case on merits, including details relating to its objects and activities. 7. That the non-participation in the proceedings was neither deliberate nor intentional. 8. That the appellant is now fully prepared to place all relevant documents, explanations and evidences as may be required for the purpose of grant of registration under section 12AB of the Act. 9. That it is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 4. Considering the rival submissions and taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to consider the application of the assessee for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act, afresh and in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- G.M. DOSS CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 14/10/2026 Prabhat

Copy to: PREM PUNITA FOUNDATION, OFFICE NO. 803, 8TH FLOOR, EMBASSY 1 CENTRE, 221, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, MAHARASHTRA CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, ROOM NO. 601, 6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA HILL, MTNL TE BUILDING, PEDDER 2 ROAD, DR. GOPAL RAO DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY ABHINAV ANANT Digitally signed by ABHINAV ANANT GAVANDE GAVANDE Date: 2026.10.24 14:36:20 +05'30' ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →