AIC RAISE BUSINESS INCUBATOR,COIMBATORE vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3206/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 January 2026Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's attitude in not responding was not commendable, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given. The issues were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(E) rejecting their Form No.10AB for registration u/s.12AB and approval u/s.80G. The CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders as the assessee did not reply to the notices issued.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(E) after ex-parte orders were passed due to non-response to notices?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai both dated 29.09.2025, rejecting Form No.10AB filed for seeking registration u/s.12AB and approval u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’).

& 3206/Chny/2025 2. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(E) has passed ex-parte orders. The reason for deciding the appeals ex-parte was that the assessee did not reply to the notices issued from the office of the CIT(E). The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has responded to the first notice issued on 20.05.2025 but was unable to respond to the notice issued on 06.09.2025 within the stipulated time, since the Managing Trustee of the assessee trust was on travel and was unavailable during the issue of show- cause notice. Therefore, it was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to represent its cases before the CIT(E).

3.

The ld.DR supported the orders of CIT(E).

4.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(E) had issued notices directing the assessee to file certain details/documents. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(E) passed ex-parte orders. It is the claim of the Ld.AR that the Managing Trustee of the assessee trust was on travel and was unavailable during the issue of show-cause notice and hence, could not respond. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude & 3206/Chny/2025 of the assessee in not responding to the notice issued from the office of the CIT(E). However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its cases and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(E). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd January, 2026 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →