RAMKRUSHNA EDUCATION AND CHERITABLE TRUST DEVLI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 151/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 November 2025Bench: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the bonafide belief of the assessee and the advice given by the consultant.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the application and cancelled the provisional registration due to non-response to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned and whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration application and cancelling provisional registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE & MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Hearing: 15/10/2025Pronounced: 17/11/2025

आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(Exemption)”], dated 19.09.2023 and 6.12.2024 whereby the learned CIT(Exemption) rejected the assessee’s application filed in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for grant of registration under section 12AB and also cancelled the provisional registration earlier granted to the assessee under the said provision.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal read as under:

1. The ld.CIT(E) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in passing the order ex parte.

2. The ld.CIT(E) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in rejecting the Registration under section 12AB of the Act.

1.

1. The ld.CIT(E) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in rejecting the Registration under section 12AB of the Act.

2.

The ld.CIT(E) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in holding the case that Circular no.07 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024 was not applicable to the facts of the case.

3.

The applicant/appellant trust filed application for registration of trust u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Form 10AB on 24.03.2023 u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The applicant/appellant was granted the provisional approval as per Form 10AC on 24.01.2022 under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. The applicant did not respond the notices dated 19.07.2023 and 19.08.2023, therefore, the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration for lack of details vide order dated 19.09.2023.

4.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 19.09.2023, the applicant/appellant filed appeal being belatedly by 419 days. The consultant of the applicant/appellant did not updated about the order dated 19.09.2023 as he has not updated the email id of the consultant and has not noticed the email. Considering the Circular No. 7 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024, the said consultant advised to file a fresh application which was being filed on 22.06.2024. Since the applicant/appellant was under bonafide belief that the applicant/appellant will be heard on merit and the order will be passed on merit by the CIT(E) waited for the subsequent order to be passed on the fresh application dated 06.12.2024. Thus, the delay in filing the present appeal is not deliberate. Hence, delay is condoned.

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →