PRATHAM VAKRATUNDA EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 237/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 January 2026AY 2024-255 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the CIT(E) had provided two opportunities, and the assessee had admittedly filed a reply to the second notice, which was acknowledged. However, the CIT(E) deemed the reply incomplete and rejected the application. The Tribunal noted the assessee's willingness to make further submissions. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's request to restore the case to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed that the CIT(E) shall grant necessary opportunities to the assessee, and the assessee shall avail them. The CIT(E) is to pass orders judiciously without being influenced by the earlier order. No specific issue was left undecided; the primary decision was to remand the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pratham Vakratunda Education and Social Welfare Society, filed applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal (CIT(E)), issued two notices to the assessee on 09.10.2024 and 25.10.2024, seeking information and documents by 21.10.2024 and 11.11.2024, respectively. The assessee failed to respond to the first notice but submitted a reply to the second. The CIT(E) observed that the assessee did not furnish complete information regarding charitable activities and cash donations, failing to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of donors. Consequently, the CIT(E) rejected the applications for registration and approval and cancelled the provisional registrations/approvals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and cancelling its provisional registration, on the grounds of non-compliance with the questionnaire? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that while it missed the first opportunity, it did file a reply to the second notice, which was acknowledged by the CIT(E). The assessee claimed to be ready to provide further details and requested one more opportunity in the interest of justice, seeking the matter to be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Revenue's contention: The Revenue opposed the assessee's request, submitting that the assessee failed to furnish the required details and documents despite two opportunities. The Revenue contended that the CIT(E) had limited time to pass an order and had no option but to reject the application due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Revenue argued that the CIT(E)'s order was perfect in the given situation and should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, AR
For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh CIT-DR
Hearing: 15.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

The captioned two (2) appeals, first being relating to registration u/s 12AB and second being 80G(5), are filed by assessee against a single consolidated order bearing DIN: ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071438609(1), dated 21.12.2024 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [“CIT(E)”] by which the assessee’s applications for grant of final registration u/s 12AB & final approval u/s 80G(5) of Income-tax Act,

Pratham Vakratunda Education and Social Welfare Society & 237/Ind/2025 1961 [“the act”] have been rejected and the provisional registration u/s 12AB & provisional approval u/s 80G(5) granted earlier have also been cancelled. The assessee has raised the grounds as mentioned in respective Appeal Memos (Form No. 36).

2.

Since these appeals relate to the same assessee and are interconnected, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

3.

At first, we re-produce below the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E) which is a single consolidated order in both matters of section 12AB & 80G(5):

Annexure (mentioned in row-9 above) A query latter dated 09/10/2024 has been issued to the assessee regarding to furnish all the information/documents on before 21/10/2024. Then assessee society fails to avails the opportunity on the above mentioned date and no reply was furnished. Subsequently a second opportunity was given to the society vide letter dated 25/10/2024 regarding to furnish complete information/documents on or before 11/11/2024. In response to the above notices the assessee society submitted his reply along with documents. During the examination of the information /documents submitted by the assessee society it is observed that no specific expenditure is debited in the P&L account regarding charitable activities as per object of the society during the F.Y. 2021-22/2022- 23/2023-24. The assessee society fails to substantiate his claim with sufficient documentary evidences. The assessee society accept huge amount of cash donation during the said period but fails to submit documentary evidence to establish the identity creditworthiness & genuineness of the donor. Also no documentary evidences were furnish by the assessee society regarding chartable activities carried out during the said periods. Thus it is found that after giving two opportunity the assessee fails to furnish point wise complete information as per original a query letter date 09/10/2024,

Pratham Vakratunda Education and Social Welfare Society & 237/Ind/2025

In view of above, due to non-compliance of requisite questionnaire dated 09/10/2024 by the assessee society, the application of the assessee in Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s 12AB & 80G(5) of I.T Act is hereby rejected and provisional registration are also hereby cancelled. VIJAY KUMAR SONI CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL

4.

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has given only two opportunities to assessee vide notices dated 09.10.2024 & 25.10.2024 by giving hearings on 21.10.204 & 11.11.2024 respectively. While it is true that the assessee could not respond on first hearing but, however, the assessee filed a reply to CIT(E) in response to the notice of second hearing; the filing of reply by assessee is clearly acknowledged by Ld. CIT(E) in first sentence of second para of impugned order. However, the Ld. CIT(E) has observed that the assessee did not furnish pointwise complete information as required. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has already filed certain details/documents to CIT(E) and further ready and willing to represent its case for full satisfaction of CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice one more opportunity must be given to assessee and this matter needs to be restored back at the level of CIT(E) for consideration afresh.

5.

Replying to same, Ld. DR for revenue opposed the request of Ld. AR.

He submitted that the CIT(E) issued two notices and asked assessee to submit details/documents but the assessee did not furnish required details/documents and it was a failure of assessee. He submitted that the Page 3 of 5

Pratham Vakratunda Education and Social Welfare Society & 237/Ind/2025 CIT(E) has a limited time to pass order within 6 months and had no option except to reject assessee’s application when the assessee did not file the details/documents for satisfaction of CIT(E). He submitted that the CIT(E)’s order is perfect in the situation and must be upheld.

6.

We have considered rival submissions of both sides and carefully perused the impugned order as well as the documents held in Paper-Book filed. After a careful consideration, we find that the CIT(E) has given only two opportunities to assessee and admittedly the assessee has filed reply to CIT(E) also which is acknowledged by CIT(E). However, the CIT(E) has considered assessee’s reply as not giving complete information and therefore rejected assessee’s application. But the assessee is ready to make further submissions for the satisfaction of CIT(E). Therefore, in order to grant substantial justice to assessee, we agree to the request made by Ld. AR for assessee and restore this case at the level of CIT(E) for adjudication afresh.

Needless to mention that the CIT(E) shall give necessary opportunity to assessee and the assessee shall avail those opportunities and that the CIT(E) shall pass order(s) judiciously without being influenced by his earlier order in any manner.

Pratham Vakratunda Education and Social Welfare Society & 237/Ind/2025

7.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 22/01/2026

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →