TALATIS SCOUT TRUST,ELPHINSTONE ROAD PAREL vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS),, CUMBALLA HILL MTNL TE BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the Assessee claimed to have filed a response, but the Commissioner failed to decide the issue properly in the absence of relevant documents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The Assessee filed an application for registration u/s 12A. The Commissioner found the application incomplete and issued notices, but the Assessee failed to respond. The Commissioner rejected the application within the statutory limitation period.
What were the issues?
Whether the Commissioner erred in rejecting the registration application without properly considering the Assessee's response, and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 23.11.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2024-25.
In this case, the Assessee, by filing application in Form no.10AB before the Ld. Commissioner, has sought for registration u/s 12A of the Act. On verification of the same, it was found by the Ld. Commissioner that the application was incomplete and not accompanied with all the documents required for the same and therefore he issued various notices, but of no avail, as the Assessee failed to respond to any of the notices and therefore, finding no option and considering the statutory limitation to decide the application on or before 30.11.2024, the Ld. Commissioner rejected the said application.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, has challenged the impugned order and has claimed that the Assessee has duly filed its response/compliance dated 15.10.2024, however, the Ld. Commissioner, in haste manner and without considering the said reply/compliance, decided the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act and rejected the same. And therefore the impugned order may be set aside.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee by submitting that the Ld. Commissioner has given proper opportunities of being heard by issuing three notices in total but the Assessee did not make any compliance, as it clearly appears from the impugned order and therefore the appeal of the Assessee is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. From the impugned order though it clearly appears that the Assessee has not made any response, however, the Assessee has claimed contrary that it has duly filed its reply on dated 15.10.2024 in response to the notice dated 23.09.2024. At this juncture, we are inclined not to go into the controversy whether the Assessee had filed any reply or not, however it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of relevant reply/submissions and/or documents, failed to decide the issue involved in the application filed by the Assessee in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs.1100/- in the Revenue Department “under other heads” but within 15 days from the receipt of this order.
The Assessee is directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner. We clarify that in case of subsequent default the Assessee at all shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2025.
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026