← Back to search

CHANDRAMARI TRUST,COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

PDF
ITA 2307/CHNY/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 October 20254 pages

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘सी’’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
ŵी ऐम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ के समƗ
Before Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member &
Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2307/Chny/2025
िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: -

Chandramari Trust,
90, Pinnacle Residency, PRP Gardens,
Bharathi Colo, Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore 641 004. [PAN: AACTC3285D]

Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)

(ŮȑथŎ/Respondent)

अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by :
Shri V. Balaji, Advocate
ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by :
Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing :
23.10.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
24.10.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Exemption), Chennai rejecting the application dated 16.05.2024 in Form
No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”
in short] seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act.

2.

We find the appeal is filed with a delay of 201 days. The assessee filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing

I.T.A. No.2307/Chny/25
2
both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication.

3.

We note that the assessee filed online application on 16.05.2024 in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. The ld. CIT(E), while processing the application, asked the assessee to furnish certain documents including Note on activities and annual accounts/financial statements of the Institution, certified copies of certain important documents, etc. mandatorily required for verification. Since the assessee could not furnish the details, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act.

4.

The ld. AR Shri V. Balaji, Advocate submits that the notice issued by the ld. CIT(E) has been received by the assessee’s employee, who left the office of the assessee and the assessee-trust was not aware of notice as well as show-cause notice issued by the ld. CIT(E). As the assessee- trust undertakes to furnish complete details as required by the ld. CIT(E) as per statement of facts filed along with Form No. 36, the ld. AR prayed for affording one more opportunity for filing the details as called for.

I.T.A. No.2307/Chny/25
3

5.

The ld. DR Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT drew our attention to para 2.2 & 3.1 of the impugned order and submits that the ld. CIT(E) afforded various opportunities to the assessee for furnishing the details, but, it was not availed.

6.

Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to afford one more opportunity to the assessee for furnishing the details for verification for grant of registration under section 12AB of the Act and decide the application afresh after considering the details for processing the application as may be filed by the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th October, 2025 at Chennai. (M. BALAGANESH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 24.10.2025

I.T.A. No.2307/Chny/25
4
Vm/-

आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant,
2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent,
3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR &
5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.

CHANDRAMARI TRUST,COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI | BharatTax