RAJA DESINGH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GINGEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ANNEXE BUILDING

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4287/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 October 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the concession made by the Revenue regarding the discrepancy in dates and in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to re-examine the issue of delay in filing the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The assessee is permitted to submit evidence supporting the reasons for the delay and the merits of the application. The Ld. CIT(E) is to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, considering the reasons for delay and, if delay is condoned, decide the grant of registration on merits. The ratio decidendi is that procedural irregularities and factual discrepancies, especially when conceded by the revenue, warrant a remand for fresh consideration to ensure justice and proper adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raja Desingh Educational Trust, filed an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, against an order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2026-27. The assessee had applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 16.10.2025. The CIT(E) rejected the application, holding that it was filed belatedly and the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee contended that the CIT(E) has the jurisdiction to condone delay and the application was dismissed without due consideration. A discrepancy in the filing date was also noted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in dismissing the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in limine without due consideration of the delay and sufficient cause, thereby failing to exercise its jurisdiction to condone the delay? Assessee's contentions: The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(E) possesses the jurisdiction to condone the delay. The application was dismissed summarily without proper consideration. The Ld. AR also pointed out an incorrect finding by the Ld. CIT(E) regarding the date of filing the application, stating it was filed on 20.11.2025 instead of the actual date. The assessee sought a remand to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh examination and processing of the application. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. DR conceded that there was a discrepancy in the dates mentioned in the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 27.10.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4287/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2026-27 Raja Desingh Educational Trust, Vs. The CIT(E), No 83, thindivana road, Chennai. Kalayur Village, Viluppuram, Tamil Nadu-604001. [PAN: AAATR0681G] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. R. Harshvardan, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.10.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai, for the assessment year 2026–27.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that the assessee filed an online application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) on 16.10.2025, as is evident from the first paragraph of the impugned order at page No. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) held that the said application was filed belatedly and that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay.

2 I.T.A. No.4287/Chny/2026

3.

The Ld. AR, Mr. R. Harshvardan, Advocate, submits that the Ld. CIT(E) has the jurisdiction to condone the delay and that the application was dismissed in limine without due consideration. Further, he drew our attention to paragraph No. 3.2 of the impugned order and submitted that the finding of the Ld. CIT(E) that the application was filed on 20.11.2025 is incorrect. He prayed that the matter be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh examination for processing of the application afresh for grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act.

4.

The Ld. DR, Ms. R. Anita, CIT, conceded that there is a discrepancy between the dates mentioned in paragraph No. 3.2 and paragraph No. 1 at page No. 3 of the impugned order.

5.

Therefore, considering the same, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the issue relating to the delay. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to process the application seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Act afresh and, if there is any delay, consider the reasons stated by the assessee and pass an order in accordance with law. Consequently, if the assessee succeeds in seeking condonation of delay, the Ld. CIT(E) may decide the issue relating to the grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act on merits. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of the reasons for the delay and merits. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(E) is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

3 I.T.A. No.4287/Chny/2026

Order pronounced on 27th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 27.10.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.10.30 17:36:38 +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 →