Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Directs CIT(E) to Reconsider Section 12AB Registration, Allowing Defect Cure

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 1497
Case Name
Nidhivan Foundation Bangan Ka Nangla Vs CIT-Exemption (ITAT Jaipur)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Nidhivan Foundation Bangan Ka Nangla Vs CIT-Exemption (ITAT Jaipur)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur has remanded the case of Nidhivan Foundation Bangan Ka Nangla back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] for reconsideration. The foundation had appealed against the rejection of its application for registration under Section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reasons cited for rejection were the foundation’s non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, benefit to interested persons, and alleged non-genuineness of activities. However, the tribunal noted that these issues were curable and directed CIT(E) to give the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

The tribunal also condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471), which advocates a liberal approach in condonation of delay cases. The assessee had argued that the delay occurred due to an inadvertent mistake by an accountant, a justification that was accepted by the tribunal. The tribunal noted that the delay was neither intentional nor would it grant any undue advantage to the assessee, reinforcing the principle that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice.

Regarding the rejection of Section 12AB registration, the foundation provided evidence that it had obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act after its application was initially rejected. The tribunal observed that this was a curable defect. Additionally, the assessee filed an affidavit clarifying that a disputed invoice, allegedly dated March 20, 2024, was a clerical error, and the actual date should have been March 20, 2023. The tribunal accepted this explanation and found merit in allowing the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,951

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.