DEVRAJ NARSHI MEHTA AUDICHYA GOHILWADI BRAHMAN BOARDING,KESHOD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the facts, restored both appeals to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal into the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee is responsible for acknowledging future notices.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable trust, appealed against the CIT(E)'s rejection of its applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejections were for non-prosecution and failure to furnish details, which the trust attributed to lack of awareness of online procedures and notices in a small town, resulting in a significant delay in filing appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) correctly rejected the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) for non-compliance, and whether the assessee's delay in appeals due to lack of notice awareness warrants condonation and fresh consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
These are two appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(E)’] dated 18/09/2023 & 22/09/2023, rejecting the applications of the assessee for registration u/s.12AB of the Act and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
& 2114/Ahd/2025 Devraj Narshi Mehta Audichya Gohilwadi Brahman Boarding vs. CIT(E)
2 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee-trust has submitted that the trust is engaged in charitable activities. That the notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(E) through email, however, since the assessee-trust was located at a small place in Junagadh and the trustees were not aware about the know- how of ‘online’ procedure of the income-tax proceedings and even the Counsel for the assessee-trust also did not inform or look into the issue. It has, therefore, been explained that the assessee-trust was not aware about the notices of hearing and even did not receive the impugned orders of the CIT(E) dismissing the applications of the assessee for want of prosecution/non- furnishing the requisite details. That when it come to the knowledge of the assessee-trust about the passing of the impugned orders of the CIT(E), a considerable delay of about 700 days had already occurred. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that the aforesaid delay in filing these appeals as well as non-prosecution of the applications before the CIT(E) was not intentional, but due to the aforesaid facts and circumstances. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee-trust is engaged in charitable activities and deserves to be registered as Charitable Institution u/s.12A of the Act and is eligible for approval u/s.80G of the Act.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be well-served, if the assessee-trust is given an opportunity to present its cases before the Ld.CIT(E), subject to payment of some reasonable costs. We, accordingly, direct the assessee-trust to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each in respect of the aforesaid two appeals in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and will show the proof of such deposit before the Ld. CIT(E). Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, both the matters are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications of the assessee-trust afresh, after giving a reasonable & 2114/Ahd/2025 Devraj Narshi Mehta Audichya Gohilwadi Brahman Boarding vs. CIT(E) opportunity of hearing to the assessee-trust. The assessee-trust will take care of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) and it will not be a ground available to the assessee that the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) did not come to its knowledge.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026