KOLHAPUR INVESTORS ASSOCIATION,KOLHAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the rejection order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with two effective opportunities.
What were the facts?
The assessee applied for regular registration under Section 12AB but failed to provide required documents despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the CIT(E) rejected the application and cancelled the provisional registration.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of registration application due to non-compliance with document submission requirements was justified, and if the assessee should be given another opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr291 citing398 ITR 250 · 2017 · HC
- Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others164 citing167 ITR 5 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
Appearances Assessee by : Mr S S Gudhate [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30/05/2024 ORDER PER G. D.PADMAHSHALI, AM; By present appeal, the assessee impugned the order of rejection passed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [for short ‘CIT(E)’] vide DIN & order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2023-24/1054680018(1) dt. 27/07/2023.
We have heard both rival parties; and subject to provisions of rule 18 of ‘ITAT Rules’, perused material placed on record.
At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate 151 days delay in instituting the present appeal, we in the larger interest of justice and after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4
Kolhapur Investor Association Vs CIT(E) Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the same as ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’
We note that, the appellant vide Form No. 10AB dt. 10/02/2023 filed an application to the respondent under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act thereby seeking regular/final registration u/s 12AB of the Act. The appellant’s failure to annexe required documents as contemplated u/r 17A(2)(k) of IT-Rules, the Ld. CIT(E) by notice dt. 19/05/2023 accorded an opportunity to make good the deficiency of the application, the assessee supplied requisite documents. In the event of failure on the part of assessee to comply with the requirement one more opportunity was granted vide separate notice dt. 10/07/2023; however this notice was even remain unattended.
In absence of requisite documents, the Ld. CIT(E) was constrained to reject to grant regular registration and cancel the provisional registration granted to appellant on 20/02/2022 u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act as he could not draw any satisfactory conclusion about genuineness of activities of the appellant and satisfaction over compliance of requirements of any other law for the time being in force as are material for the purpose of achieving its stated objective of the appellant.
ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4
Kolhapur Investor Association Vs CIT(E)
We note that, the statue empowers the registering authority to call any such documents or information so as to satisfy himself with twin prescriptions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Act viz; (A) genuineness of activities (B) Compliance with all applicable laws etc., and in order to draw conclusion over satisfaction the registering authority is duty bond to carry out wholesome & autonomous exercise according to nature/character of charitable purpose vis-a-vis the applicant engaged into. In arriving to conclusion over satisfaction about the genuineness of activities and compliance of applicable law, the registration proceedings is expected to vouch predominantly; (i) whether applicant is a public charitable trust established in accordance with applicable law & in operation as such [Constitution/Establishment] (iii) whether all the entries of object clause are in consonance with the ‘charitable purpose’ as defined by section 2(15) of the Act [Objects] (iv) whether there exist any implied or express provision in the constitutional & other administrative documents/policies etc., entitling any right or power to the trust/trustee carry to engage (by itself or through agent/appointees) into any activities outside the ambit of registered objects [Rights/Power] (vi) whether all the activities and operation are strictly carried out in line with the registered objects of ‘charitable in nature’ [Activity] and finally (vii) whether it is compliant of all the applicable law in all respect and around the clock[Compliance]. Any proceedings culminated without vouching ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4
Kolhapur Investor Association Vs CIT(E) ITA No. 373/PUN/2024 these former key factual (Corac) would prima-facie be deficient as it may lead to absurd conclusion.
We find that, owning to absence of evidential documents and failure on the part of appellant to cure notified deficiencies constrained the Ld. CIT(E) to culminate the impugned registration proceedings without former wholesome & autonomous exercise. However, the reasons behind non-compliance as explained in each of these cases in our considered view are sufficient for setting aside the rejection and remitting these matters back to the file of registering authority for de-nova consideration which the Ld. DR could hardly object.
In view hereof, without commenting on merits we set-aside the impugned rejection and cancellation of provisional registration, and consequently remit the matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for de-nova consideration in accordance with law after giving two effective opportunities to the appellant assessee.
The appeal in result is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES. U/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in open court on this Thursday 30th day of May, 2024.
-S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE; दिन ांक / Dated : 30th day of May, 2024. आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT(Exemption),Pune 6.ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. 4. The CIT-Concerned(MH-India) 5. DR, ITAT, Pune Bench ‘A’, Pune आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठदनजीसदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयन्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4
More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)
- D vs Welfare Foundation, Thanevs.Income Tax…ITA 6191/MUM/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Ahmednagar Historical Museum and Research… vs CIT (Exemption), AhilyanagarITA 1969/PUN/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Ahmednagar Historical Museum and Research… vs CIT (Exemption), PuneITA 1968/PUN/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri 108 Sudharm Nang Ahinsa Trust, Jaipur vs CIT(E), JaipurITA 372/JPR/2026[NA]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026
- Nathu Ka Foundation, Jaipur vs CIT (Exemption), JaipurITA 1212/JPR/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026