SRJB MEMORIAL TRUST,ENGLISH BAZAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2494/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 January 2026AY 2025-263 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 held that the delay in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons and therefore condoned the delay. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application for regular registration because the assessee did not file the notarized affidavit, which was stated to be not filed due to the non-availability of trustees. The Tribunal was of the view that the ends of justice would be served by restoring the appeal to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to comply with the directions of the CIT(E). Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, SRJB Memorial Trust, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata (CIT(E)). The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2025-26. The appeal was filed 61 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee's counsel explained the delay, and the Revenue's counsel did not object. The ITAT condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The core issue was the rejection of the assessee's application for regular jurisdiction under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(E). This rejection occurred because the assessee failed to submit an amended trust deed/notarized affidavit in response to a notice dated June 19, 2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? (Question of fact and procedure) 2. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for regular jurisdiction under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(E) was justified, considering the failure to submit an amended trust deed/notarized affidavit? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the application for regular jurisdiction was rejected solely because the amended trust deed/notarized affidavit could not be submitted in response to the CIT(E)'s notice. The assessee contended that while all other directions were complied with, the notarized affidavit was not filed due to the non-availability of the main trustees. The assessee prayed for an opportunity to be heard again by the CIT(E) by restoring the appeal. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's counsel did not raise any objection to the condonation of the delay. The Revenue's counsel also did not object to the assessee's prayer for restoring the appeal to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Hearing: 06.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(E)”] dated 30.06.2025 for the AY 2025-26.

2.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 61 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.

3.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the application for regular jurisdiction u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act was

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT (E) rejected the application for regular registration when the assessee did not file the notarized affidavit which was stated to be not filed due to non-availability of trustees. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be well served if the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT (E) with a direction to decide the issue afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and assessee is also directed to comply with the direction by the ld. CIT (E). Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.01.2026.

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)

All 429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →