SHALOM INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH FOUNDATION,PARLI vs. CIT(E), COCHIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 720/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 November 2025AY 2024-20254 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12A by the CIT(E) was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed not to have received the show cause notice via email, and thus could not provide an explanation for the delay. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that an opportunity of hearing was not adequately provided. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the assessee to appear before the CIT(E) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shalom Institute of Mental Health Research Foundation, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] dated 18.06.2025. The CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application in Form No.10AB for registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on a delay of 38 days in filing the application. The assessee contended that it did not receive the show cause notice via email, and therefore could not submit an explanation. The CIT(E) proceeded to reject the application without this explanation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(E) on account of a 38-day delay, without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard, is sustainable in law? Assessee's contentions: The Learned Authorized Representative (A.R) for the assessee argued that the CIT(E) rejected the application due to the delay without affording the assessee a hearing. The assessee also stated that it did not receive the show cause notice through email. Therefore, the assessee prayed for one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) and requested that the matter be remanded back for fresh adjudication. Revenue's contentions: The Learned Departmental Representative (D.R) relied on the order passed by the CIT(E).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chittor, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Hearing: 04.11.2025Pronounced: 06.11.2025

O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Cochin [hereinafter “CIT(E)”] dated 18.06.2025 in rejecting the application in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).

Shalom Institute of Mental Health Reserch Foundation 2. The assessee has filed an application dated 07.11.2024 in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the aforesaid application in Form No.10AB on account of delay of 38 days in filing the said application. The assessee has not received the aforesaid notice through email, however the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application, as the assessee has failed to submit an explanation in response to the show cause notice.

3.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for the delay without hearing the assessee therefore, he prayed for one more opportunity may be provided to substantiate his case before Ld. CIT(E).

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) .

5.

We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(E), we find that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation of the show cause notice. The Ld. A.R has submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application on account of delay without providing an opportunity Shalom Institute of Mental Health Reserch Foundation to the assessee as the assessee has not received any notice through email and, therefore it is requested that the case may be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate this issue afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for his fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 6th November, 2025 at Cochin.

More judgments on Section 12A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →