SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 4890

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (AHMEDABAD BENCH)
OM EDUCATION TRUST AHMEDABAD – Appellant
Versus
THE CIT (EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD – Respondent
ITA 2235/AHD/2025[NA]



##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 2235 & 2236/AHD/2025

Assessment Years: NA

Om Education Trust, The Commissioner of

404, A One Residency, Opp. Income Tax (Exemption),

Bhavani park, Nirant Cross Ahmedabad – 380015

Road, Vastral, Ahmedabad,

Vs.

Gujarat – 382418

[PAN – AAATO8804G]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Parin Shah, AR

Revenue by Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing 26.02.2026

Date of Pronouncement 03.03.2026

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate

orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, [in

short “CIT(E)”], both dated 24.09.2025 in the proceeding u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

and u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an

application in Form No. 10AB for renewal of registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) had noted that the assessee was having only

provisional registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. The assessee was

not having any regular registration issued u/s. 12AB of the Act. Further

##PAGE2##

ITA No. 2235 & 2236/Ahd/2025

Om Education Trust Vs. CIT(E)

2

the application for regular registration was required to be filed within a

period of six months from the commencement of business activities or at

least six months prior to expiry of the provisional registration, whichever

was earlier, and this timeline was not complied in the present case. The

Ld. CIT(E) had, therefore, rejected the application of the assessee.

Further in the absence of any valid registration u/s. 12A of the Act, the

application for approval u/s. 80G of the Act, was also rejected.

3. Aggrieved with the orders of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in

appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken by the assessee

in ITA No. 2235/Ahd/2025.

1 The order passed by the CIT(Exemption) is bad in law and required to

be quashed.

2. Ld. CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in rejecting registration application

filed in Form 10AB of the Act by observing that appellant trust failed to

apply for final registration pursuant to provisional registration gratned by

them.

3. Ld. CIT(E) ought to have consider the fact being a first time

implementation of complicated registration required liberal view.

4. Appellant trust prays to set aside filed to CIT(E) with a request to

condone delay in applying final registration by observing principle of

natural justice.

4. S hri Parin Shah, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the

assessee is a new trust and had obtained provisional registration on

31.12.2021 which was valid for A.Ys. 2022-23 to 2024-25. The assessee

being a new trust was not conversant with the requirements and,

therefore, the application for regular registration was not filed within a

period of six months from the commencement of business. The Ld. AR

##PAGE3##

ITA No. 2235 & 2236/Ahd/2025

Om Education Trust Vs. CIT(E)

3

explained that the assessee had, however, filed the present application

u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, six months prior to the expiry of the

provisional registration. He explained that the Ld. CIT(E) was not correct

in not condoning the delay in filing the application and rejecting the

application on the ground of delay. He, therefore, requested that the

matter may be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to condone

the delay and thereafter consider the applications of the assessee on

merits.

5. Per contra, Shri R P Rastogi, the Ld. CIT-DR, supported the orders

of Ld. CIT(E). He, however, had no objection if the matter was set aside

to the file of the Ld. CIT(E).

6. We have considered the request of the assessee. As the facts

stands the assessee was allowed provisional registration on 31.12.2021

which was valid for A.Ys. 2022-23 and A.Y. 2024-25. The assessee was

required to apply for regular registration within a period of six months from

the commencement of business. The trustee o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top