M/S SREE CHEMITTIYA BHAGAVATHI KALYANA MANDAPA TRUST,PALAKKAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not judiciously deal with the assessee's application, failing to comment on the trust's objects or activities. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trust engaged in managing Kalyanamandapams for charitable purposes, applied for registration under Section 12A. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) dismissed the application.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, and whether the CIT(E) properly adjudicated the application.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
O R D E R
Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :
The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) dated 28th March, 2024.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust and engaged in the construction and management of Kalyanamandapams. These kalyanmandapams have been used for the charitable purposes. Assessee applied for the registration u/s.12A of the I.T.Act before the ld.CIT(E). The ld.CIT(E) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(E), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. The assessee has raised six . Sree Chemittiya Bhagavathi Kalyana Mandapa Trust. grounds of appeal, however, the solitary issue which is to be decided whether the assessee is entitled for the registration of 12A or not.
Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing no one appeared from the side of assessee despite the service of notice. Therefore, we are deciding the matter on the basis of material available on record. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(E).
We have heard the DR and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the ld.CIT(E) has not dealt with the application of the assessee in a judicious manner, inasmuch as the CIT(E) has not commented upon any of the objects of the assessee. Similarly, the CIT(E) has not made any comment in respect of the activities of the assessee-society. Therefore, we restore this matter to the file of the CIT(E) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say that the CIT(E) will provide sufficient opportunities to the assessee before passing any order
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of December, 2024.
More judgments on Section 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026