JITENDRA SUNITA EDUCATION SOCIETY,THANE vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1504/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 September 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if one more opportunity is given, the assessee would comply with the queries. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the order of the CIT(E) rejecting its application for registration u/s 12A of the Act. The appeal was filed with a delay of 40 days, which was condoned. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-compliance with queries.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE

Hearing: 01/09/2025Pronounced: 02/09/2025

Shri Bhupendra Shah, A/R Assessee by : Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Pune [hereinafter the “ld. CIT(E)”] dated 17/12/2024 by which the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act.

2.

The appeal is barred by limitation for 40 days. The cause for the delay has been considered and we find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal on time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. 3. Heard the parties. Order of the ld. CIT(E) carefully perused. We find that though the assessee has complied with the queries raised by the ld. CIT(E) but full compliance was not made which prompted the ld. CIT(E) to reject the impugned application.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →