DEONAR BONGIYA PARISHAD,MUMBAI vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2955/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 July 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had a duty to comply with notices, the CIT(E) should have ensured adequate opportunity for hearing and adjudication on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application, stating that the trust failed to furnish sufficient documents, proof of activities, and responses to queries, and displayed a casual approach.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration application without properly considering the evidence and affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Khinchi,AR
For Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Hearing: 26.06.2025Pronounced: 02.07.2025

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the order dated 28.03.2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] pertaining to the order passed u/s. 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2025-26. P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2025-26 Deonar Bongiya Parishad Mumbai 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai erred in rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) in Form 10AB of the Appellant trust in summary manner on the pretext that the genuineness of activities of the trust and compliance of other law for the purposes of achieving objects of the trust are not established by the Appellant. b. The Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai failed to appreciate that the Appellant has furnished documents, sufficient materials and explanation to establish genuineness of activities of the trust and compliance of other law for the purposes of achieving its objects. c. In reaching to the conclusion and rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii), the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai omitted to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations and factors.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust had made an application in Form no.10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act for registration u/s 12AB. The ld.CIT(E) on verification of application noticed that it was incomplete as all the relevant documents were not found accompanying it. Though certain details were submitted, there was no response in connection with further queries. It is observed that the applicant failed to submit proof of activities and expenses incurred by the trust. Consequently, in the absence of further details requisitioned he proceeded to reject the application for registration.

4.

It may be stated here before us the ld.AR submitted that the trust was denied adequate opportunity of hearing by the ld.CIT(E). We notice that the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground of P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2025-26 Deonar Bongiya Parishad Mumbai non furnishing of relevant details. He did not adjudicate the issues involved. However, it is equally true that it is the fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the proceedings and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities. Despite notices issued by the CIT(E), no substantive explanation was submitted. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities, the assessee displayed a casual approach and indifference.

5.

However, we are of the considered view that the scales of justice demand that the matter should be verified and revisited at the level of ld. CIT(E) and accordingly, the Bench proposed that the matter be remanded back to him for de novo adjudication by while applying the principles of natural justice and affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Both the sides agreed to this proposition. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand it back to him for fresh adjudication.

6.

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.07.2025. PAWAN SINGH PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2025-26 Deonar Bongiya Parishad Mumbai

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक /Date 02.07.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 5. सत्यावपि प्रवि //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →