VISION HUMANITY,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 125/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 January 2026AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the error in selecting the sub-clause of Section 12A(1)(ac) was merely a selection error and set aside the impugned orders. It directed the CIT(E) to grant an opportunity of hearing, allow the assessee to correct the registration, and re-consider the 80G(5) application.

What were the facts?

The CIT(E) revoked the assessee's 12A(1)(ac)(i) registration and rejected its 80G(5) application, alleging the 12A registration was irregular as the assessee lacked prior 12AA registration. The assessee contended it was incorporated after 01-04-2021 and an inadvertent error led to filing under the wrong clause of Section 12A(1)(ac), and that no opportunity of hearing was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the revocation of 12A registration and rejection of 80G application due to an inadvertent error in selecting the sub-clause of Section 12A(1)(ac) by the assessee was justified without providing an opportunity for correction or hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(i),Section 80G(5),Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Hearing: 27.01.2026Pronounced: 28.01.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.125/CHANDI/2025
ITA No.126/CHANDI/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

M/s Vision Humanity CIT (Exemptions) C/o Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) Sector-17 बनाम/ Vs. #527, Sector – 10-D Chandigarh - 160017 Chandigarh – 160009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADTV-3777-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. AR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by revocation of registration as granted by CPC u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) and consequential rejection of application seeking registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) vide impugned orders dated 25-11-2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [CIT(E)], the assessee is in further appeal before us. Upon perusal of para 4 of order passed by Ld. CIT(E) revoking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i), it could be seen that the whole basis of revocation is the fact that the 1 assessee was not having regular registration u/s 12AA prior to 01-04- 2021. The assessee applied for registration which was granted by CPC w.e.f. 21-11-2021 for AYs 2022-23 to 2026-27. Thus, the registration as granted by CPC u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) was held to be irregular and accordingly, suo-moto cancelled by Ld. CIT(E). Consequently, the application filed by the assessee seeking registration u/s 80G(5) was also rejected vide separate order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

The Ld. AR stated that the assessee was incorporated only on 16-11-2020 and this fact was duly mentioned in Form No.10A as filed to CPC. Due to inadvertent error, the application was filed under clause (i) of Sec. 12A(1)(ac) instead of clause (vi). The same was merely an inadvertent error and therefore, the registration ought not to have been revoked. The Ld. AR also stated that no opportunity was granted to the assessee to explain its case properly. The Ld. CIT-DR opposed any interference in the impugned orders.

3.

It would, prima-facie, appear that the assessee was incorporated only on 16-11-2020 and this fact was duly mentioned in Form No.10A as filed by the assessee before CPC. However, due to inadvertent error, the assessee picked up wrong clause while seeking registration from CPC. The same was merely a selection error which, in our considered opinion, would not lead to revocation of registration as granted by CPC unless any deviation was noted. Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders and direct Ld. CIT(E) to grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also allow the assessee to seek 2 necessary correction in registration as granted by the CPC. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case forthwith. The registration application u/s 80G(5) is consequential in nature and the same may be re-considered accordingly.

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

All 166 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →