SABARIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4308/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 October 2026AY 2026-20275 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 71 days in filing both appeals, finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be bonafide. For ITA No. 4307/Chny/2026, the Tribunal noted that the application for approval under Section 12AB was rejected as the required documents were not furnished, leading to no representation before the CIT(E). However, considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) with a condition of paying Rs. 5,000/- cost to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 30 days. The CIT(E) was directed to process the application upon satisfaction of the cost payment, and the assessee was permitted to file supporting evidence. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. Similarly, for ITA No. 4308/Chny/2026, the Tribunal, having decided to remand the other appeal, deemed it proper to remand the application for registration under Section 80G to the CIT(E) as well, allowing the assessee to file evidence. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sabaris Educational Trust, filed appeals (ITA Nos. 4307 & 4308/Chny/2026) against the order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. Both appeals were filed with a delay of 71 days. The assessee explained the delay with bonafide reasons, which were accepted by the Tribunal. In ITA No. 4307/Chny/2026, the assessee sought approval under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In ITA No. 4308/Chny/2026, the assessee sought registration under Section 80G of the Act. The CIT(E) had rejected the applications due to non-furnishing of required documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 71 days in filing the appeals should be condoned? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the order of the CIT(E) rejecting the application for approval under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without proper representation, warrants a remand? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the order of the CIT(E) rejecting the application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, warrants a remand, considering the decision in the related appeal? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The delay in filing the appeals was bonafide and should be condoned. - The matter should be remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, as the application under Section 12AB was rejected in the absence of proper representation. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue did not record any specific contentions against the condonation of delay or the remand of the matter. The judgment notes that the CIT(E) requested documents, which were not furnished by the assessee, leading to the rejection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 26.10.2026

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. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम# BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4307 & 4308/Chny/2026 िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Years: - Sabaris Educational Trust, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income SF No. 222/6D, 224/4C1, Tax (Exemptions), Kittampalayam, Coimbatore. NH-47, Avinashi Road, Karumathamapatti, Sulur, Coimbatore – 641 659. [PAN: AACTS-6128-F] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. R. Jaishankar, CA '(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 : 26.10.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.

:-2-: ITA Nos: 4307 & 4308/Chny/2026

First we take up ITA No. 4307/Chny/2026:

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 71 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 71

days condoned.

3.

The ld.AR, Mr. R. Jaishankar, CA, drew our attention to the

impugned order and submits that the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application

seeking approval u/s. 12AB of the Act, in absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee and prayed to remand the matter to the file of

the ld.CIT(E).

4.

After hearing both the parties, we note that the assessee filed

application in Form 10AB dated 30.09.2025 and the ld.CIT(E) requested

the assessee to furnish the required important documents which are listed therein in para no.2.1 & 2.2 of the impugned order. Admittedly,

the said documents were not furnished by the assessee which is clear

from the para no.4 of the impugned order. Therefore, it is clear that there

:-3-: ITA Nos: 4307 & 4308/Chny/2026

was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the ld.CIT(E) in

processing the application filed seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act,

but however, considering the submissions of the ld.AR and taking into

account the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of

justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(E)

on a condition of payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the Tamil

Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras,

within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The ld.CIT(E) shall

satisfy the payment of said cost and proceed to process the application

filed for seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. The assessee is liberty

to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(E) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

for statistical purposes.

5.

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

purposes.

Now Let us take up ITA No. 4308/Chny/2026:

6.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 71 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

:-4-: ITA Nos: 4307 & 4308/Chny/2026

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 71 days condoned.

7.

Since we have decided to remand the appeal in ITA No. 4307/Chny/2026 to the file of the ld.CIT(E), we deem it proper to remand the present appeal of seeking registration u/s. 80G of the Act also to the file of the ld.CIT(E). The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in

support of its claim. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(E) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 26.10.2026 JPV आदेश की 'ितिलिप अ-ेिषत/Copy to:

:-5-: ITA Nos: 4307 & 4308/Chny/2026

1.

अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु./CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय 'ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF

Digitally signed by PRASANNA PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.10.28 09:40:31 +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 →