INSTITUTE VOLUNTAS DEI,MADURAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI
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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the rejection of the application by the CIT(E) was ex-parte, and the assessee should be given another opportunity in the interest of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a religious and charitable trust, filed an application for registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-participation of the assessee in further proceedings. The assessee filed an appeal after a significant delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the registration application ex-parte due to non-participation, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai, dated 17.05.2023.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 616 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee could not respond to :-2-: ITA. No:1002/Chny/2025 the hearing notices on account of the reason that it had not seen the portal and also the affairs of the petition are managed by a group of volunteers who did not happen to monitor the hearing notices and the order posted in the postal. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.
The assessee is a religious and Charitable trust obtained the provisional registration u/s.12AB of the Act. The assessee had filed its application seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Act, vide application in Form 10AB dated 07.11.2022 u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application for non-compliance due to non-participation of the assessee in further proceedings by passing an order in Form 10AD dated 17.05.2023. Hence, the assessee prayed for an opportunity of hearing before the Ld.CIT(E).
The ld.DR relied on the impugned order and submitted that the ld.CIT(E) had given sufficient opportunity and hence prayed for confirming the same.
:-3-: ITA. No:1002/Chny/2025 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the record and impugned orders. It is an undisputed fact on record that the notices were issued by the ld.CIT(E) on the e-filing/ITBA portal. It is a matter of admitted fact that the assessee had filed an application on 07.11.2022 u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s.12AB before the ld.CIT(E), Chennai. However, the ld.CIT(E) passed the order in Form 10AD rejecting registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act filed in Form 10AB due to non-compliance of the notices as per the impugned order dated 17.05.2023.
We find that the Ld.CIT(E) rejected the application by passing an exparte order due to non-participation of the assessee and hence the assessee needs to be given one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. Therefore, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and fair play we set aside the order of ld.CIT(E) and restore the application filed u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, in Form No. 10AB for seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Act, back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to send notices on the assessee afresh through registered email ID, e-portal or as per provisions of the Act and pass speaking order after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee as per law. Needless to say, the assessee should be diligent in responding to the notices and furnish all the required documents during the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments and providing correct address and email ID. Thus, the :-4-: ITA. No:1002/Chny/2025 matter is restored to the CIT(E), Chennai. In case the assessee fail to appear then, no lenient view will be taken by the ld.CIT(E).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 15th July, 2025 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026