Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. Despite several notices and opportunities, the Assessee failed to provide additional information and comply with the requirements. Consequently, the Commissioner rejected the application.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the Assessee was at fault for non-compliance. However, considering the facts and circumstances for a just decision, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner's rejection of the registration application was justified due to the Assessee's non-compliance and failure to provide necessary documents.
Sections Cited
250, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH“A”, MUMBAI
O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.09.2025, impugned herein, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Live to Give Foundation 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 11 days in filing instant appeal. Considering the reason stated by the Assessee as genuine, bonafide and unintentional, the delay is condoned.
Now coming to the merits of the case, we observe that in the instant case, the Assessee by filing an application in Form – 10AB dated 29.01.2025 has sought for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act, which was considered by the Ld. Commissioner by issuing notice dated 02.07.2025, in response to which the Assessee made submissions on 14.07.2025 on ITBA/e-filing portal and furnished the requisite details and documents.
Thereafter, another notice dated 19.08.2025 was also issued to the Assessee to furnish additional information etc., as mentioned in the Para No.4 of the impugned order, however the Assessee made no compliance and therefore the Ld. Commissioner also issued a reminder dated 29.08.2025, in response to which the Assessee made an online request dated 03.09.2025 for grant of more time for submissions of the documents sought for by the Ld. Commissioner.
The Ld. Commissioner though granted the opportunity to the Assessee upto 16.09.2025, however still the Assessee made no compliance and/or filed no additional information. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner considered the material available on record and ultimately rejected the application filed by the Assessee for seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.
Live to Give Foundation 6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly the Assessee was at fault as despite affording various opportunities, as demonstrated above the Assessee failed to comply with the notices and/or failed to file the additional information, which resulted into rejecting the application filed by the Assessee, specifically in the absence of necessary compliance by the Assessee and due to which the Ld. Commissioner was unable to arrive at statutory conclusion, as observed by the Ld. Commissioner in Para No.7 of the impugned order and therefore the Assessee deserves no leniency.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the issue also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner specifically, in the absence of relevant additional submissions/documents, which the Assessee admittedly failed to file and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by setting aside the impugned order, however, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under ‘other heads’, within 30 days of this order without any default.
Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissionerfor decision afresh, in the above terms.
We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.