KARIKKAKOM SREE CHAMUNDI TEMPLE TRUST,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE CIT EXEMPTIONS, KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) to re-examine the application in light of the amended trust deed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a temple trust, applied for permanent registration under Section 12A. The CIT(E) rejected the application citing a trust deed lacking mandatory clauses and being for a particular community. The trust deed was subsequently amended after the CIT(E)'s order.
What were the issues?
Whether the denial of registration under Section 12A was justified based on the original trust deed, and if an amended trust deed executed after the impugned order can be considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
Asst.Year 2023-2024 Karikkakom Sree Chamundi The Commissioner of Income- Temple Trust, Beach P.O. tax (Exemption) v. Kochi. Karikkakom Thiruvananthapuram – 695 039. PAN : AAATK5331Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :Sri.Alan Dev, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 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 (Exemptions) dated 23.03.2023 against denial of registration u/s.12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, having DIN & Notice No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/1051172853(1).
3. There is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee- trust explaining the delay(s). Therefore, relying on the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of
The short facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust, came into existence on 04.04.1992. On 09.03.2023 a trust deed was executed mentioning the main object, i.e., improvement of temple and protecting the properties of temple etc. The assessee was granted provisional registration vide order dated 27.05.2021. Thereafter, the assessee vide application dated 30.09.2022, has applied for permanent registration. The CIT(E) dismissed the application of the assessee vide order dated 23.03.2023. The CIT(E) observed that the assessee trust is being created for a particular community and the trust deed is lacking mandatory clauses.
Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(E), the assessee filed the present appeal. The learned Counsel contended that the trust deed has now been amended and mandatory clauses have been incorporated.
The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the authority below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that the assessee trust has amended the deed on 15.05.2023, which date is subsequent to the passing of impugned order, i.e., 23.03.2023. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for examining afresh in view of the
Before parting we must clarify that when we have heard the matter we have taken a view that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed with a liberty to apply for fresh registration of 12AA. However, we are remitting the matter to the file of CIT(E), in the interest of justice and to save the time inevitable to be consumed in starting the process all again from beginning.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 10th 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 →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026