SHRI BALAJI MANDIR, SAMBHAJINAGAR,SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the appellant had responded to the first notice, they failed to comply with the second notice issued by the CIT(E) regarding certain discrepancies. However, the appellant stated that the response window was not functioning and partial submissions were sent via email. The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to grant an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard. The appellant is also directed to make submissions on the appointed date without seeking adjournment. The grounds raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Shri Balaji Mandir, a Trust running a Temple, applied for regular registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on Form No. 10AB on February 20, 2024. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune (CIT(E)), issued a notice on April 30, 2024, for verification. The appellant provided details. Subsequently, on August 1, 2024, the CIT(E) issued another notice highlighting discrepancies, to which the appellant did not comply. Consequently, the CIT(E) rejected the registration application, cancelling the provisional registration. The appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was heard ex-parte as the appellant did not appear.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in denying the grant of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to comply with the notice dated 01.08.2024. Assessee's contentions (as gathered from the Tribunal's observations): The appellant claimed that the response window was not functioning at the relevant time and that partial submissions were sent via email, with the belief they would be considered. The CIT(E) allegedly rejected the application without considering these submissions or providing a reasonable opportunity. Revenue's contentions: The Departmental Representative argued that ample opportunities were granted by the CIT(E) and the appellant failed to comply with the notice dated 01.08.2024, thus the order of the CIT(E) should be upheld.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of appellant is directed against the order framed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune dated 22.08.2024 denying grant of registration u/s.12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’).
Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Trust running a Temple. It filed application on Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act for grant of regular registration on 20.02.2024. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a notice through ITBA portal on 30.04.2024 calling upon the appellant to file certain information/clarification. The appellant filed the requisite details. However, the ld.CIT(E) issued another notice to the appellant on 01.08.2024 pointing out certain discrepancies (para 3 of the impugned order). There was no compliance from the side of appellant to such notice. In the circumstances, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the appellant, thereby cancelling the provisional registration granted to it.
Aggrieved appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal assailing the impugned order denying grant of registration u/s.12AA of the Act.
When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the appellant trust despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee.
Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ample opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT(E) and the appellant did not comply with the notice dated 01.08.2024, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(E) be upheld.
We have heard ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We find the appellant in response to the first notice issued by the ld. CIT(E) has filed the requisite details. However, when the ld. CIT(E) issued another notice asking the appellant to clarify regarding certain discrepancies found in the above submissions, the appellant failed to comply to the same. We find in the statement of facts filed before us, assessee has stated that response window was not functioning at the relevant point of time and the partial submissions were sent to the email id of the department with a belief that they will be considered. However, the ld.CIT(E) without considering the said submissions/details and without providing reasonable opportunity rejected the application filed by the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with a direction to grant an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, before the ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld. CIT(E) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the appellant are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 05th day of March, 2025.
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026