Udayanath Charitable Trust Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Hyderabad)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad, dismissed an appeal filed by a charitable trust against the order dated 25.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad [CIT(E)]. The CIT(E) had rejected the trust’s application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The CIT(E) observed that in the earlier application filed in Form No. 10A, the assessee had selected an incorrect section code, namely “02-Sub Clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A,” which was not appropriate because the trust was not holding registration under Section 12A on or before 31.03.2021. Although the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) had issued Form 10AC on 28.05.2021 granting registration for five years from Assessment Year 2022-23 to 2026-27 under that clause, the CIT(E) held that the section code selected was incorrect. A show cause notice dated 29.01.2024 was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the discrepancy in the Form 10AB application. As no reply was submitted, the CIT(E) rejected the application as infructuous.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before ITAT Hyderabad on 11.03.2025. The Registry issued a defect memo noting delay in filing the appeal. The assessee submitted a condonation petition stating that the earlier consultant had not informed about the CIT(E)’s order, resulting in delay. During hearing, it was pointed out that the registered office of the trust was at Bhubaneswar, Odisha, and therefore jurisdiction to hear the appeal lay with the ITAT Cuttack Bench, not Hyderabad. The assessee’s counsel filed a request letter seeking transfer of the appeal to the ITAT Cuttack Bench.
The Tribunal examined the request and observed that there is no provision under the Income Tax Act permitting transfer of appeals from one Bench to another either by the Bench or administratively by the Registry. The Tribunal held that since the appeal had been filed before a Bench lacking jurisdiction, it was not maintainable. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that there was a delay of 315 days in filing the appeal and that no sufficient cause had been demonstrated to justify condonation of delay.
Accordingly, the ITAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate forum, namely the ITAT Cuttack Bench, along with a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. The order was pronounced in open court on 30 January 2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), [Ld.CIT(E)], Hyderabad dated 25.02.2024
2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :
“1. CIT(Exemption), Hyd has rejected the application stating “It is observed from the submissions made by you in online application Form NO.10A, wrong section code was selected i.e. “02-Sub Clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A” which is not an appropriate section code in your case as you were not holding registration us/ 12A issued by the department on or before 31.03.2021. However, it is found that CPC has issued the Form 10AC 28.05.2021` by granting the registration 02-Sub Clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A Income Tax Act, 1961 for a period of 5 years commencing from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27 though you were not holding existing registration u/s 12A issued by the department, and you should have applied the Form 10A by opting the section code 12A(1)(ac)(vi) instead of 12A (1)(ac)(1). As such the present application for renewal of Form 10AB is infructuous, and is proposed to be rejected.
2. As the application in 10A was rejected only because of wrong section code 12A(1)(ac)((vi) instead of 12A(1)(ac) we request you to kindly look into and consider our application for registration.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, filed an application in Form No.10AB, seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). During the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad, notice dated 29.10.2023 was issued, for which the assessee has furnished certain details. The Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad, after considering the relevant application filed by the assessee and details submitted during the course of the proceedings observed that, in Form 10A, wrong section code was selected, i.e. “02-Sub Clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A” which is not an appropriate section code, as the assessee was not holding registration u/s 12A of the Act issued by the department on or before 31.03.2021. However, it is found that the CPC has issued the Form 10AC on 28.05.2021 and granted registration under Clause 02-Sub Clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act for a period of 5 years commencing from A.Y.2022-23 to A.Y.2026-27, though the assessee was not holding existing registration u/s 12A of the Act. Therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 29.01.2024 and called upon the assessee to explain the discrepancy in application filed in Form 10AB. The assessee has not submitted any reply. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad rejected the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB, seeking registration u/s 12AB as infructuos vide order dated 25.02.2024.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad, the assessee has filed an appeal before ITAT, Hyderabad Benches on 11.03.2025. The Registry has issued a Defect Memo on the issue of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit and explained that the earlier consultant did not inform about the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad, which is the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The case was listed for hearing on various dates and on 10.12.2025, CA Aniruddha Abhyankar appeared and explained the case. During the course of hearing, it was informed to the learned counsel for the assessee that the jurisdiction of the assessee to file appeal before the Tribunal lies with ITAT, Cuttack Bench as the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT, Hyderabad Benches is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the assessee on the next date of hearing, filed a request letter for transfer of appeal to ITAT Cuttack Bench and accordingly, the case was finally adjourned to 28.01.2026. None appeared for the assessee, therefore, the case was adjourned to 29.01.2026. Once again, there was no representation from the assessee. Therefore, the Bench decided to hear the appeal on the basis of material available on record and also from the Ld.Sr.AR for the Revenue.
5. We have heard the Ld.Sr.AR for the Revenue and perused the relevant documents filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad. As noted by the Registry, the appellant Trust, having registered office address at 731, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Khorda 759001 and its jurisdiction to pursue the appeal lies with ITAT Cuttack Bench. Although the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with ITAT Cuttack Bench, but the assessee has filed appeal before the ITAT Hyderabad Benches. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee through his counsel, for which, the learned counsel for the assessee has filed a letter requesting for transfer of the appeal. The application filed by the counsel for the assessee for transfer of the appeal has been perused and after considering the relevant application, we find that there is no provision under the Act for transfer of appeal from one Bench to another Bench, either by the Bench itself or by administrative action from the Registry. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, without there being any valid jurisdiction is not maintainable. Further, we also note that there is a delay of 315 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which there is no explanation from the assessee, which can be considered as „sufficient cause‟ for condonation of delay. Therefore, we, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable, because, the appeal has been filed with wrong jurisdiction. However, liberty has been given to the assessee to file a fresh appeal with appropriate jurisdiction, i.e., ITAT, Cuttack Bench along with a petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the delay.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our observations given herein above.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th January, 2026.
