Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a religious-cum-charitable trust, applied for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to the assessee's failure to submit requisite information and appear for hearings, despite reminders. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the managing trustee's mother's serious illness.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 32-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the cause to be bona fide and supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not examine the objects of the trust or the genuineness of activities on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the registration application by the CIT(E) was justified, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
12AA(1)(b)(ii), 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B), 12AA(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE & MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKARShri Jignesh Karad, AR Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश
PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] dated 24.05.2025, passed under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], rejecting the assessee’s application for registration.
Condonation of Delay 2.1 The Registry has reported a delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit dated 23.08.2025 by Shri Gyaneshkumar Kiritkumar Doliya and Smt. Neha Gyaneshkumar Doliya, trustees of the assessee trust.
2.2 It has been affirmed that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons, as the mother of the managing trustee was seriously ill, which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. It was further assured that such delay would not recur in future. The Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection to condonation.
2.3 Having regard to the explanation on oath and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 32 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
Facts of the Case:
3.1 The relevant facts, as emerging from the order of the CIT(E) and material on record, are such that the assessee is a religious-cum-charitable trust formed for carrying out activities of public benefit. It filed an application in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the Act. The CIT(E), Ahmedabad, issued notices dated 14.02.2025 and 16.05.2025 calling for details and documents to examine the genuineness of activities. As recorded in paragraph 2 of the CIT(E)’s order, despite issuance of several reminders, the assessee failed to submit the requisite information or appear for hearing. The CIT(E), therefore, concluded that the genuineness of activities could not be verified and rejected the application.
3.2 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The CIT (EXEMPTION), Ahmedabad has rejected the application u/s 12AA on 24/05/2025 after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. We were issued enough number of reminders before the issuance of Final order against us. However, due to ill health of mother of the trustee, we were not able to submit the reply in time. We have gathered all the information and data that was asked by the Assessing officer and we are submitting the same to yourself.
During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR), submitted that the trust was formed to carry out charitable and religious activities for public benefit and due to the ill health of the mother of the managing trustee, the appellant could not respond within the stipulated period. The AR further submitted that the default was neither deliberate nor wilful. The rejection order thus is procedural and not on merits. The trust has now submitted all requisite information; therefore, the order be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
The learned DR, after hearing the assessee’s explanation, did not raise any objection to the prayer for restoration of the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh decision on merits.
We have carefully considered the facts and rival submissions. The rejection of registration under section 12AA by the CIT(E) was solely on account of non-compliance with the notices issued under Rule 17A(2). The cause of non-response, as explained by the assessee and supported by affidavit, appears bona fide. There is no indication of deliberate default or concealment.
6.1 We observe that the CIT(E) did not examine the objects of the trust or genuineness of activities on merits, which are the primary requirements under section 12AA(1)(b). The documents now placed before us, including trust deed, details of trustees, audited financials, and evidence of charitable activities, deserve to be examined by the CIT(E) before a final conclusion is drawn.
6.2 In such circumstances, and having regard to the principle of natural justice, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the CIT (E), with a direction to adjudicate the application afresh on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
6.3 The assessee is directed to fully cooperate and promptly furnish all documents and information required for proper verification.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 16th October, 2025 at Ahmedabad.