SHRI CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,SHRIGONDA vs. CIT (E), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the initial notice but argued insufficient time for the subsequent one. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee applied for registration under Section 12AB. The CIT rejected the application and cancelled provisional registration due to non-compliance with a notice requesting further information, citing a lack of proper opportunity and insufficient time to furnish details.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT provided a proper opportunity to the assessee before rejecting the registration application and cancelling provisional registration. Whether the time provided to the assessee to furnish information was reasonable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi),Section 12(1)(ac)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12(1)(ac) of the IT Act on 29.09.2023. 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, a notice was issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune through ITBA portal on 29.11.2023 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification. The desired information was furnished by the assessee. On verification of said information, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies and issued another notice on 01.02.2024 requesting the assessee to furnish further details/information in this regard on or before 08.02.2024. Since the assessee has not complied with the notice dated 01.02.2024, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted on 24.05.2022 u/s 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the 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 of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. It was submitted that the last notice was issued on 01.02.2024 asking for various information and other details and the compliance was required to be made on or before 08.02.2024. It was submitted that lots of information was already furnished by the assessee and again various information was required through the above notice dated 01.02.2024 and only seven days were provided to the assessee to furnish the desired information. Due to paucity of time, the assessee could not comply with the above notice. Accordingly, it was 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 Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.
Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly the assessee made compliance to the initial notice issued by the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. It is the sole contention of the assessee trust that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to furnish reply before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. In this regard, it was contended before the Bench that due to paucity of time the reply could not be filed by the assessee trust & in such kind of situation, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have provided at-least one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & also in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand
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 →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026