ID CARE TRUST,BANGALORE V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

ITA 1626/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. ID Care Trust, a registered charitable trust, which appealed against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) who had rejected their application for registration under section 12AB. The rejection was initially due to the assessee's failure to respond to a notice, which was sent to an outdated email address. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notice due to this error and thus did not have a fair opportunity to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter for de novo consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824994 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVANAND H KALAKERI
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUKESHWAR HEGDE
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Charitable institution

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1626/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25 M/s. ID Care Trust, 106/138, Nagawara Main Road, Nagawara, Bangalore – 560 045. PAN: AAATI9340R Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CA Revenue by : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 14-10-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(E) dated 20/06/2025 in which the Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the application filed for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered charitable trust and engaged in various charitable activities as mentioned in the objects of the trust. Initially, the assessee got a provisional registration on 16/06/2022 and thereafter the assessee filed an application for regular registration on 11/12/2024. The Ld.CIT(E) issued notice on 21/05/2025 but the assessee had not responded to the said notice and therefore the Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 1626/Bang/2025 Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the said application ex-parte and also cancelled the provisional registration already granted. 3. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the hearing notice issued by the Ld.CIT(E) was not received by the assessee since the said notice was sent to an outdated email ID [e-mail] and therefore the assessee was not able to appear before the Ld.CIT(E). The Ld.AR also submitted that the assessee had changed their email ID as [e-mail] and the said email ID was also updated in the income tax portal but unfortunately, the notice was sent to the outdated email ID and therefore the assessee was not able to appear before the Ld.CIT(E) and produce the relevant records. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the several documents which were all filed before the Ld.CIT(E) and also enclosed the screenshot of the portal from which it was found that the notice was sent to the outdated email ID of the assessee. The Ld.AR also took us through the screenshot of the profile which shows the email ID as [e-mail]. The Ld.AR therefore prayed that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee before rejecting the said application for registration and therefore prayed an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(E). 5. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and prayed to dismiss the appeals. 6. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. We have perused the paper book filed by the assessee in which the assessee had enclosed the various records to show that the assessee is engaged in the activities mentioned in the objects of the trust. We have also Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 1626/Bang/2025 perused the screenshot of the portal through which the hearing notices was communicated by the Ld.CIT(E) which shows that the notice was sent to the outdated email ID [e-mail]. We have also perused the screenshot of the profile which shows a different email ID. Considering the above said facts, we are of the view that the assessee had not received the notices from the Ld.CIT(E) and therefore they were not able to respond to the hearing notice. In such circumstances, we are of the view that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee for appearing and establish their case that they are entitled for getting registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. We, therefore set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for denovo consideration of the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 30th December, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "