MEIPPORUL KALVI KAZHAGAM,THIRUVARUR V. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

ITA 1040/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Meipporul Kalvi Kazhagam against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai, which rejected their application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the non-response to a notice, which the assessee claimed was not received as it went to their spam folder. The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice and decided to set aside the impugned order, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705217 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1040/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: - Meipporul Kalvi Kazhagam, Durgalaya Road, Thiruvarur-610 002. v. The CIT (Exemptions), Chennai. [PAN: AABTM 6877 G] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.N. Arjun Raj, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(E)”), Chennai, dated 24.09.2024 for rejecting the online application filed on 11.03.2024 in Form 10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act”) seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Act. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that there is a delay of ‘132’ days in filing of appeal and drawing our attention ITA No.1040/Chny/2025 (AY -) Meipporul Kalvi Kazhagam :: 2 :: to the condonation petition as well as affidavit filed in support of it submitted that due to hospitalization of the Trustee, Shri K.S.S. Thiyagapari, he couldn’t contact the Ld.AR for filing of this appeal. The assessee had also filed medical records, relevant medical report/certification for supporting the averments made in the application for condonation. Having perused the same, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on its merits. 3. The Ld.AR further brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Act only on the ground that the assessee didn’t respond to his notice on 12.09.2024 and finding no response, he refused to grant registration u/s.12AB of the Act. According to the Ld.AR, the notice was not served upon the assessee since it went to the ‘spam’ account of the assessee. Therefore, he prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E) to file all the relevant documents. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. 5. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the assessee Trust had sought registration u/s.12AB of the Act which has been rejected on the ground that the assessee didn’t respond to the notice issued by the Ld.CIT(E) on 12.09.2024, therefore, he ITA No.1040/Chny/2025 (AY -) Meipporul Kalvi Kazhagam :: 3 :: dismissed it. We find that the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned notice couldn’t be served upon the assessee since the notice went into the ‘spam’ account of the assessee. Be that as it may, since there is a violation of natural justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) and restore the application back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to decide the issues on merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee is directed to be diligent and file all relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(E). 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 04th day of July, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 04th July, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "