ANJUMAN E TANZIMUL MUSLIMEEN,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the inactive email as a reasonable cause for non-compliance. It set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and restored the case for fresh adjudication on merits, providing another opportunity to the assessee for compliance after noting the new email ID.
What were the facts?
The assessee applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, but the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application due to incomplete documentation and non-compliance with notices. The assessee's counsel contended that notices were not received because of an inactive email ID.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of the Section 12AB registration application due to non-compliance was justified when the notices were not received by the assessee due to an inactive email ID, and if a further opportunity for compliance should be granted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh
Appellant by : Tanzil Padvekar Respondent by : Ajay Chandra Date of Hearing 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(Exemption) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2024- 25. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption- Mumbai [Herein referred as 'CIT (E)'] erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and in law, the Appellant Trust is fulfilling all mandatory conditions for eligibility of grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. Hence, the impugned order of CIT(E) may be set aside and quashed and CIT(E) may be directed to grant registration under Section 12AB of the Act.
3. On the facts and in law, the impugned order rejecting grant of registration under Section 12AB has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice for lack of sufficient opportunity for making submission. Hence, the impugned order may quashed and set aside.
P a g e | Anjuman E Tanzimul Muslimeen Vs. CIT(Exemption) 4. The appellant craves, leave to alter, modify, revise, add/delete ground (s) with the leave of Hon'ble Bench.”
Fact in brief is that assessee has filed an application in form no. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Mumbai. On verification of the Form No. 10AB filed by the assessee trust the ld. CIT(Exemption) found that the application in Form No. 10AB filed by the assessee was incomplete as all the document required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Exemption) has issued notice dated 02.08.2013 and reminder dated 30.11.2013 and 04.01.2024 respectively requesting the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents mentioned in Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rule 1962. However, the assessee has not made any compliance to the notices issued as referred above. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Exemption) stated that he could not be satisfied about the object of the trust or institution and genuineness of the activities in absence of necessary compliance made by the assessee. Therefore, keeping in view the statutory time limit to decide the application filed by the assessee on or before 29.02.2024 the ld. CIT(Exemption) has rejected the application for seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act.
During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has not received notices referred by the ld. CIT(Exemption) since the email was not active. Therefore, the ld. Counsel submitted that more opportunity be provided to the assessee before the ld. CIT(Exemption) for deciding the application seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act on merit. The ld. Counsel has also submitted new email id for the purpose of communication.
On the other hand the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
