SREE LAKSHMI SARASWATHI RAJARAJESHWARI CHARITABLE TRUST,MADHAWARA BANGALORE vs. EXEMPTIONS WARD 3,BLR, UNITY BUILDING, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the application for permanent registration was premature as the trust had not commenced its activities. Therefore, the rejection by the CIT(E) on grounds of lack of genuineness was not sustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee trust, having obtained provisional registration, inadvertently applied for permanent registration before commencing its activities. The CIT(E) rejected the application for failing to prove the genuineness of activities.
What were the issues?
Whether an application for permanent registration under Section 12AB filed before the commencement of activities is considered premature and liable for rejection on grounds of lack of genuineness.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
PER SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(E) dated 09/12/2025 in which the registration sought for u/s. 12AB has been rejected.
ITA No. 567/Bang/2026 Sree Lakshmi Saraswathi Rajarajeshwari Charitable Trust 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable institution and got their provisional registration on 17/06/2025 in which the provisional registration has been granted for the A.Ys. 2026-27 to 2028-29. As per the provisions of the Act, the assessee has to apply for permanent registration on or before 30/09/2027. But inadvertently, the assessee filed an application on 16/08/2025 even though the trust had not commenced their activities. The Ld.CIT(E) also by its order dated 09/12/2025 had rejected the said application on the ground that the assessee had not proved the genuineness of activities even though the notices have been sent to the assessee.
As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that even though the provisional registration has been granted upto the A.Y. 2028-29, mistakenly the assessee filed an application for permanent registration on 16/08/2025 within a period of 2 months from the date of the provisional registration and therefore, the Ld.CIT(E) ought to have denied the permanent registration on the ground of premature instead of rejecting the application by stating that the assessee had not established the genuineness of the trust. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the documents and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ananda Social & Educational Trust dated 19/02/2020 and submitted that the assessee may be permitted to withdraw the application filed mistakenly and also permit them to apply for the permanent registration as and when the time period approaches.
The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had not produced the details and therefore, the Ld.CIT(E) had rightly rejected the application.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
ITA No. 567/Bang/2026 Sree Lakshmi Saraswathi Rajarajeshwari Charitable Trust 7. We have perused the provisional registration granted by the Ld.CIT(E) on 17/06/2025 in which the period of provisional registration has been mentioned from A.Ys. 2026-27 to 2028-29. In the said provisional registration, it was mentioned that the trust should apply for the permanent registration atleast six months prior to the expiry of the period of provisional registration or within six months of commencement of the activities whichever is earlier. In the present case, the assessee trust had got the provisional registration on 17/06/2025 and they have not commenced any activities and therefore, there is no necessity for the assessee to apply for the permanent registration within a period of two months i.e. on 16/08/2025. The submission of the assessee for the early filing of the application is because of the inadvertent mistake committed by the consultant. As seen from the provisions, the assessee need not file application for permanent registration when they have not commenced any activities or the period of provisional registration is going to expire. In the present case, the assessee had neither commenced the activities nor the provisional registration is going to expire, in order to apply for the permanent registration. Therefore, we are accepting that the application has been filed inadvertently and on that basis, the Ld.CIT(E) had considered the application and sought for the details which the assessee could not be able to produce. The reason being that they have not commenced the activities and therefore, they could not file any documents to show the genuineness of the activities. In such circumstances, as submitted by the assessee, the application filed by the assessee for the permanent registration is a premature one and therefore, the Ld.CIT(E) could have rejected the application on the sole ground instead of rejecting the application by saying that the assessee had not furnished the documents. When the assessee has not commenced any activities, it could not produce any documents in support of their application. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the application filed for permanent registration is a premature one and therefore, we are accepting the prayer of the assessee and treated the application as withdrawn. When we are treating the application as withdrawn, the consequential order by the Ld.CIT(E) is also not sustainable and therefore, we set aside the same. We
ITA No. 567/Bang/2026 Sree Lakshmi Saraswathi Rajarajeshwari Charitable Trust also made it clear that as and when the assessee is entitled for applying the permanent registration, they may apply afresh to the Ld.CIT(E) and in such event, the Ld.CIT(E) is directed to consider the same on merits.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the above terms indicated.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- PRASHANT MAHARISHI SOUNDARARAJAN K. VICE – PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated: 11th August, 2026.
Copy to:
Sree Lakshmi Saraswathi Rajarajeshwari Charitable Trust, No. Hanumanthayya Gowdanapalya, 1 Madhawara Post, Bengaluru – 562 123.
The Income Tax Officer, 2 Exemptions Ward – 3, Bangalore. 3 The PCIT / CIT, 4 The D.R., ITAT, Bangalore Bench BY ORDER
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., BANGALORE.
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026