TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... registration under section 12AB, both the appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The assessee before us is a company incorporated under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 and is stated to have been established with the object of carrying on charitable activities in the field of education. It has set up a higher education institution by the name of "Jio Institute". The assessee was originally granted registration under section 12AA of the Act on 10.04.2018 with effect from 01.04.2017 and was also granted approval under section 80G of the Act on 13.08.2018. Thereafter, consequent upon the statutory amendments brought in by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, whereby all existing trusts and institutions registered under section 12A/12AA were required to migrate to the new regime by making an application under section 12AB, the assessee made the requisite applications and was granted registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G vide orders dated 28.05.2021 and 31.05.2021 respectively, valid for a period of five years ending on 31.03.2026. 3. Subsequently, the assessee undertook amendmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordingly, the application seeking renewal of registration was rejected. 6. As a sequel to the rejection of registration under section 12AB, the learned CIT(E) also rejected the application seeking approval under section 80G by holding that section 80G(5) applies only to such institutions to whom, inter alia, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 apply, and since the assessee's application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had been rejected, the approval under section 80G could not be granted. Thus, the rejection under section 80G is admittedly founded entirely upon, and is consequential to, the rejection under section 12AB. 7. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire foundation of the impugned order is factually erroneous. It was submitted that the learned CIT(E) has proceeded on the assumption that after amendment of the objects, the assessee did not file any application under section 12A(1)(ac)(v), whereas the record clearly shows that such application was duly filed and was allowed by the learned CIT(E) himself vide Form No.10AD dated 18.04.2024. It was further submitted that during the present renewal proceedings also, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The order dated 18.04.2024 in Form No.10AD was passed by the competent authority under the very statutory framework. It was neither withdrawn nor cancelled nor shown to be non est in law. Therefore, in the subsequent renewal proceedings, the learned CIT(E) could not have proceeded as if no such approval existed. A statutory authority deciding a later application is bound to take into account its own earlier order, especially when such order directly answers the very objection on which the later rejection is founded. 11. In our considered view, this is not a mere procedural irregularity. It goes to the root of the matter. The rejection order proceeds on an assumption which is contrary to the Department's own record. When a material document, namely Form No.10AD dated 18.04.2024, had been filed before the learned CIT(E) and when that document clearly established that approval for amended objects had already been granted, the learned CIT(E) was required to deal with the same. Non-consideration of such a vital document renders the decision-making process infirm. A finding which stands contradicted by a subsisting statutory order cannot be allowed to form the basis for denial of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d already obtained approval for the amended objects. 15. The learned CIT(E) has also observed that registration under section 12AB is to be granted after being satisfied about the objects, genuineness of activities and compliance of other laws material for achieving such objects. There can be no quarrel with this proposition. However, the difficulty is that after stating the correct statutory test, the learned CIT(E) has not applied it to the facts of the case. There is no discussion as to why the objects are not charitable. There is no discussion as to why the educational activities are not genuine. There is no finding that any law material for achieving the objects has been violated. Instead, the order rests entirely upon the alleged violation of section 12A(1)(ac)(v), which, as already noted, is contrary to the approval already granted in Form No.10AD dated 18.04.2024. 16. We therefore hold that the impugned order rejecting the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB is unsustainable both on facts and in law. The assessee had duly complied with the requirement of section 12A(1)(ac)(v) by filing the requisite application after amendment of its objects, an....