TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein the assessee's application in Form No. 10 AB, dated 28 November 2025, for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act was rejected. 04. ITA No. 2253/Bangalore/2026 is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30 March 2026 passed by the learned CIT (Exemption), wherein the assessee's application in Form No. 10 AB, dated 27 November 2025, for registration under section 12AB was rejected. 05. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA 2225/Bang/2026: 1. Invalidity of the Impugned Order The order dated December 16, 2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejecting the Appellant's application for registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, arbitrary, contrary to the facts on record, passed without appreciation of the material furnished by the Appellant, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice The impugned order is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate of Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, inasmuch as: a) no specific Show Cause Notice proposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r families; 7. Failure to Appreciate Supporting Evidence Furnished The learned Commissioner erred in ignoring the detailed submissions, expense classification statements, vouchers, photographs, activity reports, books of account, and supporting records furnished by the Appellant during the course of proceedings, which clearly established the genuineness of the activities carried on by the Trust. 8. Failure to Appreciate Procedural Circumstances The learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that the Appellant had physically submitted the required documents before the Department through the inward section owing to the concerned officer being on leave, and despite such compliance, no further clarification or opportunity was granted before passing the impugned order. 9. Order Based on Irrelevant and Extraneous Considerations The learned Commissioner erred in rejecting the application on irrelevant and extraneous considerations, surmises, and conjectures, without recording any finding that the objects of the Trust were non-charitable or that the activities carried on by the Appellant were not genuine. 10. Prayer The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt are not genuine or are not carried out in accordance with its objects, rejection of registration is unsustainable in law. 4. Non-Consideration of Material Demonstrating Genuine Activities The Ld. CIT(E) erred in ignoring the detailed submissions, financial statements, supporting vouchers, expense classification statements, books of account, activity reports, and other supporting material furnished by the Appellant demonstrating that the Trust had undertaken genuine charitable activities in furtherance of its stated charitable objects. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to bring any cogent material on record to establish that the activities of the Appellant were non-genuine or not carried out in accordance with its objects. 5. Unjustified Rejection of the Fresh Application Owing to Procedural Defects in the First Order The Ld. CIT(E) failed to consider that the first rejection order dated December 16, 2024, was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice without issuing any statutory Show Cause Notice (SCN). Since the first order was a procedural nullity, the Appellant chose the remedy of filing a fresh application with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed subject to the outcome of the Section 12AB appeal. 3. Unjustified Denial of Approval Based on a Non-Statutory Technical Bar That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in holding that the 80G approval cannot be granted because the Appellant did not appeal the 12AB rejection Order dated December 16, 2024. That the Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the current 80G application is tied to a fresh, validly filed second 12AB application, which he was legally bound to evaluate on its independent merits regarding the genuineness of objects and charitable activities. 4. General Relief Claimed That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, modify, or substitute any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of the hearing of this appeal. 06. In short, the facts show that the assessee is a charitable trust registered on 30 June 2020, established with the object of supporting and empowering children from migrant communities, irrespective of caste, creed, or language of the region, by providing access to education, nutrition, and health care, with the objective of preventing school dropouts and eradicating child labour. 07. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in filed a fresh application in Form No. 10 AB, seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act on 27 November 2025. The assessee also made a simultaneous application seeking approval under section 80G of the Act on 28 November 2025. 10. During this hearing of the fresh application made by the assessee, a notice dated 3 December 2025 was issued, pursuant to which the assessee filed details on 18 December 2025 and again on 22 January 2026. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 7 March 2026 and 17 March 2026, and the assessee complied by furnishing several details. 11. However, on 30 March 2026, the learned CIT (Exemption) dismissed the assessee's application, rejecting the registration under section 12AB of the Act. Consequently, on the same date, the learned CIT (Exemption) also dismissed the assessee's application for approval under section 80G of the Act. 12. The reason for rejection was that the earlier order dated 16 December 2024, which rejected the registration under section 12AB of the act, had attained finality because it had not been challenged before the appellate authority, and that approval under section 80G could not be granted in the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust. We find that the assessee originally filed an application for registration before the learned CIT - exemption, which was rejected by order under section 12AB of the Act on 16 December 2024. However, the appeal before us was filed on 27 May 2026. Meanwhile, the facts show that the assessee made a fresh application for registration, which was also rejected on 30 March 2026 because the assessee had not challenged the original rejection made by the learned CIT - exemption on 16 December 2025. Therefore, the assessee came to know that it was required to file an appeal against the original rejection, as this was the main reason for the rejection of the second application. This order was passed on 30 March 2026, and the assessee filed an appeal on 29 May 2026. We find that there is sufficient cause for the late filing of the appeal, by 467 days, against the order passed by the learned CIT - exemption on 16 December 2024, and therefore we admit ITA No. 2225/Bangalore/2026. 17. On the merits of the appeals, we have heard the learned authorised representative and the learned CIT DR. 18. Coming to the merits of the appeal in ITA No. 2225/Bangalore/2026, we find that the assessee st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has not commenced its activity. Even if such a view is formed by the learned CIT exemption, he must confront this with the assessee or his jurisdictional assessing officer who has submitted his report. No such notice to the assessee or examination of the report is conducted by the CIT exemption. Thus, we find that unless further examination of the facts determines whether the activity has been carried out by the assessee and then about genuineness, the application of the assessee cannot be rejected. 21. Further, the second application by the assessee is rejected on the ground that the earlier rejection has not been challenged and that the reasons remain the same. The rejection is also incorrect because the assessee has spent a reasonable amount on the donations received by it. It is not a finding of fact that no donations were received by the assessee, or that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not for the object of trust. It may also happen that, if the trust has not commenced its activities, and the assessee's application is rejected for this reason, as soon as the activities commence, the assessee can again apply for registration. There is no bar under the Incom....