GURUKUL GROWTH EDUCATION FOUNDATION,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3/MUM/2025Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 March 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | ITA No. | A.Y. | Appellant | Respondent | |------------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2/Mum/2025 | 2025-26 | Gurukul Growth Education Foundation, R.No. B/07, Nandanvan Bldg, N/R Railway Subway, Vasai Virar (M Corp),3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, acknowledging the counsel's concession and in the interest of justice, restored both appeals to the CIT (Exemptions) for a fresh decision. The CIT (Exemptions) is directed to afford the assessee a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard in accordance with the law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two separate appeals against the CIT (Exemptions)'s rejection of applications for registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original applications were not properly attended to, and the assessee's counsel offered an undertaking to comply with all directions if granted a fresh opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the applications for registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G when the assessee's original applications were not properly attended to, and a fresh opportunity with an undertaking for compliance was sought.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA

O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, A.M :

These two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders of the CIT (Exemptions), one rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and the other rejecting the application u/s. 80G of the Act.

2.

The representatives were heard at length. Case records perused. We find that the application of the assessee was not attended properly before the CIT (Exemptions). Before us, the counsel gave an undertaking that if given a second chance, the assessee will comply with the directions of the CIT (Exemptions) and furnish all the necessary details required.

3.

Considering this concession of the counsel, in the interest of justice, we restore both the appeals to the files of the CIT (Exemptions) to be decided afresh, after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the provisions of the law.

4.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →