SIDDHKALA VISHVASTA TRUST,SATARA vs. CIT EXEMPTION,, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1903/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 September 2025AY 2022-2023Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order was due to the previous consultant not forwarding the notices. Considering the interest of justice and that a new consultant has been appointed, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT's order.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under Section 12AB of the IT Act. The CIT rejected the application and cancelled the provisional registration, citing non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed that notices were sent to an erstwhile consultant who failed to inform them.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT was justified in rejecting the registration application without providing proper opportunity due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Mali (Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Hearing: 18.09.2025Pronounced: 25.09.2025

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.11.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act.

2.

There is delay of 192 days in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 192 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee has applied for registration in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act on 28.06.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, notices were issued, however the assessee has not complied with any of the notice. Since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in reply to any notices, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 24.09.2021 u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not provided proper opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. It was submitted that the notices of hearing were issued on the email ID of erstwhile consultant i.e. vikaramvishalcsc@gmail.com and the information of hearing was not provided to the assessee which resulted in non-compliance before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Ld. AR further submitted that now the assessee has appointed new consultant who is looking after all these matters. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune with a direction to provide at least one more opportunity to furnish the requisite documents/information as desired by him.

5.

Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.

6.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly the notices of hearing were sent on the email of erstwhile consultant who did not inform the assessee about the notices which resulted in unfortunate ex-parte order. Now, the assessee has appointed a new consultant who is looking after the taxation matters and therefore it was contended before the bench that if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee, the assessee is in a position to substantiate application for registration.

7.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & also in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →