GURUVARYA AACHARYA KALAPURNA SURISHVARJI SHEKSHANIK SANGH,GHATKOPAR WEST vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS),MUMBAI, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application hurriedly without affording sufficient opportunity for hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Although the assessee failed to provide information despite notices, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision on merit, granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit details.
What were the facts?
The appeals were against the orders of the CIT(Exemption) rejecting the appellant's applications for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) r/w section 12AB of the Act. The rejection was based on the ground that the assessee failed to provide necessary information regarding expenses, bank statements, and donation details, raising doubts about the trust's object and genuineness.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Exemption) rejected the registration application without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, thus violating natural justice principles.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘G’ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): The facts and issues under both the appeals are similar and interrelated. Hence, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. The facts of for A.Y. 2024-25 are only being narrated.
(Assessment Year : 2024–25)
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned CIT(Exemption), Mumbai, in application no. CIT(Exemptions), MUMBAI/2024- 25/12AA/10522, wherein appellants application moved u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) r/w section 12AB of the Act for the grant of registration has been rejected.
Briefly stating, the appellant moved an application before learned CIT(Exemption), Mumbai in form 10AB u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii), seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. Learned CIT(Exemption) rejected appellant’s application on the ground that appellant assessee failed to file the information regarding proof of expenses made by the trust, bank statements and donation details etc. In such a scenario the learned CIT(Exemption) was not satisfied about the object of the trust and the genuineness of the activities, thereby rejected applicant’s application.
Appellant assessee has approached this Tribunal on the ground that learned CIT(Exemption) has rejected appellant’s aforesaid application without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for the appellant assessee and learned DR for the revenue.
& 5875/MUM/2024 Guruvarya Aacharya Kalapurna Surishvarji Sheekshanik Sangh 5. At the very outset, learned representative for the appellant assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(Exemption) has as very hurriedly rejected the application for the grant of registration without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Learned AR has requested to restore the matter back to the learned CIT(Exemption) and to afford an opportunity of furnishing the required details before the learned CIT(Exemption).
Learned DR has submitted that the appellant was afforded various opportunities but for no avail. Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
We notice that the assessee could not furnish certain informations w.r.t the proof of expenses made by the trust, bank statements and the details of donations despite various notices issued by the learned CIT(Exemption). We further notice that learned CIT(Exemption) passed order, keeping in mind that the statutory limitation period was expiring on 30.09.2024. In such circumstances, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Exemption) for deciding the matter afresh on merit. Appellant assessee is thus afforded last opportunity to make submission and to furnish required details before learned CIT(Exemption). Needless to say that learned CIT(Exemption) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 21.09.2024 is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Briefly stating, the appellant assessee filed form 10AB on 13.03.2024 before learned CIT(Exemption) and prayed for the approval under the clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act. This prayer of the appellant was also rejected by learned CIT(Exemption) on 21.09.2024 in view of the rejection of appellants application for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act as stated hereinabove. The impugned order passed in this appeal is the consequence of the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by learned CIT(Exemption) on appellant’s application for the grant of registration as narrated in the discussion while deciding ITA NO. 5852/MUM/2024. In such scenario the impugned order dated 21.09.2024 in this appeal stands set aside. Learned CIT(Exemption) is directed to pass order afresh in this matter in the changed circumstances in accordance with law. This appeal is thus allowed.
In the result, assessee’s appeal and are allowed. The matter is restored to the file of learned CIT(Exemption) for statistical purposes. Let the Let copy of this order be placed on ITA No. 5875/Mum/2024. Order pronounced in open court on 13.01.2025.
More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3149/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3148/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- D vs Welfare Foundation, Thanevs.Income Tax…ITA 6191/MUM/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026