SHRI MEWADI BADE SATH OSWAL PANCHAYATI TRUST,INDORE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 240/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 November 2025AY 2024-255 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order and the paper book. It noted that the CIT(E) had given two opportunities, and the assessee had admittedly filed a reply, which was acknowledged by the CIT(E). However, the CIT(E) deemed the information incomplete and rejected the applications. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed a comprehensive paper book and was ready to make further submissions. To grant substantial justice, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's request to restore the cases to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide necessary opportunities, which the assessee was expected to avail, and to pass a judicious order without being influenced by the earlier decision. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Mewadi Bade Sath Oswal Panchayati Trust, filed appeals against an order dated December 21, 2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal (CIT(E)). This order rejected the assessee's applications for final registration under Section 12A and final approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and cancelled the provisional registration and approval granted earlier. The CIT(E) cited non-compliance with questionnaire letters dated October 24, 2024, and November 11, 2024, and failure to furnish complete information regarding charitable activities for FY 2021-22 and 2022-23, despite two opportunities. The assessee contended that a reply was filed on November 20, 2024, and a detailed paper book was submitted, requesting one more opportunity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, solely on the grounds of non-compliance and failure to furnish complete information, despite the assessee filing a reply and a paper book? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that while the first opportunity was missed, a reply was filed on November 20, 2024, in response to the second notice. A detailed paper book of 80 pages was submitted, and the assessee was willing to provide further information. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be granted, and the matter should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Revenue's Contention: The revenue opposed the assessee's request, stating that the assessee failed to furnish the required details and documents despite two notices. The CIT(E) had limited time to pass an order and had no option but to reject the applications due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory information.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, AR
For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 11.11.2025Pronounced: 14.11.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per Bench:

1.

The captioned two (2) appeals, first being relating to registration u/s 12A and second being 80G, are filed by assessee against a consolidated order bearing DIN: ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071434655(1) dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [“CIT(E)”] by which the assessee’s applications for grant of final registration u/s 12A & final approval u/s 80G of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] have been rejected and the provisional registration u/s 12A & provisional

Shri Mewadi Bade Sath Oswal Panchayati Trust & 240/Ind/2025 approval u/s 80G granted earlier have also been cancelled. The assessee has raised the grounds as mentioned in Appeal Memos (Form No. 36).

2.

We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the case record.

3.

At first, we re-produce the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E):

Shri Mewadi Bade Sath Oswal Panchayati Trust & 240/Ind/2025

4.

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has given only two opportunities to assessee vide notices dated 24.10.2024 & 11.11.2024 by giving hearings on 08.11.2024 & 19.11.2024 respectively. While it is true that the assessee could not respond on first hearing but, however, the assessee e-filed a reply dated 20.11.2024 to CIT(E) in response to notice of second hearing, copy of e-filing acknowledgement downloaded from departmental website is filed at Pages 9-10 of Paper-Book. He submitted that the CIT(E), in first sentence of second para of impugned order, acknowledged assessee’s reply but, however, observed that the assessee did not furnish complete information as required. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed a detailed Paper-Book consisting of 80 pages comprising of various documents for the examination of CIT(E) and the assessee is also ready and willing to represent its cases for full satisfaction of CIT(E).

Therefore, in the interest of justice one more opportunity must be given to assessee and these matters needs to be restored back at the level of CIT(E) for consideration afresh.

5.

Replying to same, Ld. DR for revenue opposed the request of Ld. AR.

He submitted that the CIT(E) issued two notices and asked assessee to submit details/documents but the assessee did not furnish required details/documents and it was a failure of assessee. He submitted that the CIT(E) has a limited time to pass order within 6 months and had no option except to reject assessee’s applications when the assessee did not file the Page 3 of 5

Shri Mewadi Bade Sath Oswal Panchayati Trust & 240/Ind/2025 details/documents for satisfaction of CIT(E). He submitted that the CIT(E)’s order is perfect in the situation and must be upheld.

6.

We have considered rival submissions of both sides and carefully perused the impugned order as well as the documents held in Paper-Book filed. After a careful consideration, we find that the CIT(E) has given only two opportunities to assessee and admittedly the assessee has filed reply to CIT(E) also which is acknowledged by CIT(E). However, the CIT(E) has considered assessee’s reply as not giving complete information and therefore rejected assessee’s applications. However, the assessee has filed a Paper- Book containing various documents for the examination of CIT(E) and also ready to make further submissions for the satisfaction of CIT(E). Therefore, in order to grant substantial justice to assessee, we agree to the request made by Ld. AR for assessee and restore these cases at the level of CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. Needless to mention that the CIT(E) shall give necessary opportunity to assessee and the assessee shall avail those opportunities and that the CIT(E) shall pass orders judiciously without being influenced by his earlier order in any manner.

Shri Mewadi Bade Sath Oswal Panchayati Trust & 240/Ind/2025

7.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 14/11/2025

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →