SHRI NA vs. ARI VISHALAD VIDHYOTEJAK FUND NAVSARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the application was not considered on its merit due to the incorrect clause selection. It directed the CIT(E) to treat the application under the correct clause and consider it on merit after providing a hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AB, but mistakenly selected clause (vi)-ITEM(B) instead of (iii). The assessee had provisional registration and applied within time for regular registration, fulfilling other conditions.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB, filed with an incorrect clause selection, should be considered on merit?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 254(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Assessee represented by Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CA Department represented by Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Institution of Appeal 05/12/2024 Date of hearing 13/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 13/02/2025 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad [in short, the ld. CIT(E)], dated 09/11/2024.
2. Rival submission of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). However, at the time of filing online application, the consultant/C.A. selected inappropriate clause of Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B) instead of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee submits Shri Navsari Vishalad Vidhyotejak Fund Navsari that it was an inadvertent mistake, the ld. CIT(E) ought to have considered the application of assessee under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has provisional registration, the assessee has applied for regular registration under Section 12A/12AB well within time prior to expiry of provisional registration. The assessee submits that good case on merit and is likely to succeed if the application of assessee is considered under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(E) may be directed to treat the present application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act instead of Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B). The assessee fulfilled all other remaining condition for registration under Section 12A/12AB of the Act, i.e. charitable object and genuinenity of activities.
On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submits the assessee has applied under wrong provision and the ld. CIT(E) has rightly rejected the application of assessee.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. There is no dispute that the assessee was having provisional registration under section 12A/12AB and applied for regular registration under Form 10AD. The ld. CIT(E) while considering the application of assessee held that assessee is not eligible for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B).
Shri Navsari Vishalad Vidhyotejak Fund Navsari Considering the fact that the application of assessee was not considered on merit for regular registration under Section 12A/12AB, therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the ld. CIT(E) to treat the application of assessee under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in place of Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)- ITEM(B) of the Act and to consider the case on merit and pass the order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld CIT(E) shall grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details to prove its object and activity and make all compliances as desired by the ld. CIT(E). In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
5. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member �ाियक सद�/Judicial Member सूरत / Surat Dated: 13/02/2025 SAMANTA आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��थ�/ The Respondent आयकर आयु�/ CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT गाड� फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से,
सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026