SAHIB DAYAL FOUNDATION,CHANDIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's selection of the incorrect clause was an inadvertent error. Since the assessee otherwise fulfills the conditions for registration, the impugned order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trust that commenced activities in 2008, applied for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The application was rejected by the CIT(E) because the trust had already commenced activities, and the provisional registration regime only grants it to trusts that have not yet commenced activities. The assessee inadvertently selected the wrong clause for their application.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of a registration application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) due to inadvertent selection of the incorrect clause is justified, especially when the assessee has already commenced its activities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 12A,Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B),Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Sahib Dayal Foundation CIT (Exemption) बनाम/ Nirankari Darbar CR Building Vs. Sector-21, Chandigarh-160021 Sec-17, Chandigarh �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAHTS-9966-Q (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/Appellant by : Sh. A.K. Sood (CA) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 11-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of an application seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) vide impugned order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [CIT(E)] on 05-02-2025, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the asssessee commenced its activities on 04-04-2008. In the new regime of registration, the assessee applied for provisional registration which was granted by CPC on 10-01-2024. However, post 01-10-2023, such provisional registration could be granted only in case of a trust who had not yet commended its activities. Therefore, impugned regular registration application as filed by the assessee in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was rejected by Ld. CIT(E). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The Ld. AR stated that as per amendment to Sec.12A w.e.f. 01- 10-2023, two separate provisions were created i.e., assessee which had not commenced the activities [Sec.12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A)] and the assessee who had already commenced its activities [(Sec.12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B)]. While seeking provisional registration, the assessee inadvertently selected Clause (A) instead of applicable Clause (B). The Ld. AR thus seeks consideration of application under correct clause as applicable to the assessee.
We find that the trust is an existing trust which has commenced its activities on 04-04-2008. The assessee’s return of income for AY 2010-11 was scrutinized u/s 143(3) vide assessment order dated 31- 10-2012 wherein the returned income of the assessee was accepted. In the new regime, the assessee applied for provisional registration on 03-01-2024 in Form No.10A clearly mentioning date of creation as 04- 04-2008. However, the assessee inadvertently selected clause (A) instead of applicable clause (B) of Sec.Sec. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) which has led to denial of regular registration to the assessee. Since the same was merely an inadvertent error and the assessee apparently fulfils all the other conditions to lay claim of regular registration, we set aside the impugned order and direct Ld. CIT(E) to consider the application of the assessee under relevant clause as applicable to the assessee. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its application.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17/11/2025 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT CHANDIGARH
More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3149/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3148/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- D vs Welfare Foundation, Thanevs.Income Tax…ITA 6191/MUM/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- 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