MAHANUBHAV DEENA BANDHU FOUNDATION,NIZAMABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.2129 & 2146/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: NA) MAHANUBHAV DEENA Vs. CIT (Exemptions) BANDHU Hyderabad FOUNDATION,NIZAMABAD PAN: AAOAM3147M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Pawan Kumar Chakrapani & Advocate Santi Pawan Kumar राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Smt. Seema Meena, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 27/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/08/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

These two appeals are filed by MAHANUBHAV DEENA BANDHU FOUNDATION,NIZAMABAD (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(E)”) dated 07.12.2024 and 13.12.2024. Since the issues raised by the assessee in these appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

2 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 277 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal. For condonation of the said delay, the assessee has filed separate petitions for condonation of delay supported by affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the applications of the assessee did not come to the knowledge of the assessee due to inadvertence on the part of the Chartered Accountant who had been handling the tax matters of the assessee. It was submitted that while filing the return of income of the assessee-trust for Assessment Year 2015-16, the Chartered Accountant noticed from the Income-tax portal that both the applications filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(E) have been rejected. Immediately thereafter, the Chartered Accountant informed the assessee about the rejection orders. Upon becoming aware of the said orders, the assessee immediately approached the present counsel, who took prompt steps to file the present appeals before the Tribunal. In the process, a delay of 277 days occurred. The Ld. AR further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred solely due to the aforesaid bona fide circumstances. It was contended that the assessee had duly complied with all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) during the course of the proceedings and was, therefore, under a bona fide belief that the applications were pending consideration. However, the assessee remained unaware of the rejection orders. It was further submitted that the assessee is a charitable trust engaged in activities for the benefit of society at large. If the delay is not condoned, the assessee would suffer grave hardship and irreparable loss despite having a good case on merits. It was also submitted

3 that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without properly considering the submissions and documents furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay of 277 days may be condoned and the appeals be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation petitions. It was submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 277 days in filing the appeals and the assessee has failed to establish any sufficient cause for such delay. Relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Smt. Renuka Datla Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 180 to 185/Hyd/2023, order dated 27.07.2023, the Ld. DR submitted that in the absence of sufficient cause, the delay should not be condoned and the appeals deserve to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case law relied upon. We have also carefully gone through the condonation petitions and the affidavits filed by the assessee in support thereof. We find that the explanation furnished by the assessee is that the rejection orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) did not come to the knowledge of the assessee due to inadvertence on the part of the Chartered Accountant handling the tax matters of the assessee. It was only while filing the return of income that the Chartered Accountant noticed the rejection orders on the Income-tax portal, whereafter the assessee immediately approached the present counsel and filed the present appeals without any further delay. In our considered opinion, the explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be bona fide and supported by affidavits. It is also not in dispute that the

4 assessee had participated in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) by responding to the notices issued during the course of the proceedings. Thus, there appears to be no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee to delay the filing of the appeals. It is a settled principle of law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, particularly when no mala fides or deliberate negligence can be attributed to the litigant. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation. The case law relied upon by the Revenue is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the Tribunal did not find that there was sufficient cause behind the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 277 days in filing both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- in each case, which shall be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

“1. The order of rejection for approval under section 12AB of the Act, passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemption], Hyderabad, dated 07/12/2024, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant’s case. 2. Whether the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is justified in mechanically rejecting the application filed by the Appellant for registration of the Appellant Trust under section 12AB of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

5 3. Whether the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is justified in mechanically rejecting the application filed by the Appellant Trust under section 12AB stating that no substantial charitable activities are being carried out, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Appellant craves leave of this Honorable Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds urged above, at the time of hearing of the appeal by this Honorable Tribunal. 5. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.” 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No/2146/Hyd/2025:

“1. The order of rejection for approval under section 80G of the Act, passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemption], Hyderabad, dated 13/12/2024, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant’s case. 2. Whether the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is justified in mechanically rejecting the application filed by the Appellant for registration of the Appellant Trust under section 80G of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is justified in mechanically rejecting the application filed by the Appellant Trust under section 80G stating that no substantial charitable activities are being carried out, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Appellant craves leave of this Honorable Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds urged above, at the time of hearing of the appeal by this Honorable Tribunal. 5. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”

6 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust which had applied for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by filing separate Form No. 10AB. The Ld. CIT (E) rejected both the applications of the assessee by passing separate orders in Form No. 10AD. 8. Aggrieved by the rejection orders of the Ld. CIT (E), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. In this regard, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the annexures forming part of the orders passed in Form No. 10AD. It was submitted that during the course of the proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) had called for various details and information from the assessee. Inviting our attention to the submissions filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(E), placed at page nos. 33 to 56 of the paper book, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had duly furnished all the information and documents called for during the proceedings. It was further submitted that, without considering the submissions and documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for approval under section 80G of the Act merely observing that no substantial charitable activities were being carried out by the assessee-trust. However, while rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) failed to record any reasons or findings that the application of the assessee has been rejected. The Ld. AR, therefore, submitted that both the orders have been passed without considering the submissions and documents furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, it was prayed that, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering all the submissions and documentary evidence already filed by the assessee.

7 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Ld. CIT(E). 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have carefully gone through the written submissions filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(E) placed at page nos. 33 to 56 of the paper book and find that the assessee has complied to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT (E) by filing various documents and information. We have also gone through the para no.3 of the annexure forming part of Form No. 10AD dated 13.12.2024, whereby the application of the assessee for approval under section 80G of the Act was rejected, the same is reproduced as under:

“3. On perusal of the submissions of the assessee, it is observed that no substantial charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee trust, which is in violation of provisions of section 80G of the IT Act, 1961. In light of the above facts, the present application in form 10AB for registration u/s 80G is herewith rejected”. 11. On perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. CIT(E) has merely observed that no substantial charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee-trust. However, the impugned order neither identifies any specific deficiency in the documents or information furnished by the assessee nor deals with the detailed submissions made by the assessee during the course of the proceedings. The order does not indicate as to why the explanations furnished by the assessee were found to be unacceptable. 12. We have also perused the annexure forming part of Form No. 10AD dated 07.12.2024, whereby the application of the assessee for registration under section 12AB of the Act was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E), the same is reproduced as under:

9 principles of natural justice and enables the appellate authority to effectively examine the correctness of the decision. 14. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that both the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside both the orders and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the assessee’s applications for registration under section 12AB of the Act and approval under section 80G of the Act afresh, in accordance with law, after duly considering all the submissions and documents already furnished by the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file any further explanation, evidence or documents in support of its claim, if so advised. The Ld. CIT(E) shall afford adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass separate, reasoned and speaking orders in accordance with law. 15. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 5th August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 5th August, 2026. Vinodan/sps

Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 MAHANUBHAV DEENA BANDHU FOUNDATION H NO 3-58 Sadasivanagar, S.O Lingampalle NIZAMABAD 503145 Telangana 2 CIT (Exemptions) 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad 500004 3 Pr. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File

By Order Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA DN: cn=TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI LAKSHMI NARAYANA, c=IN, o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ou=INCOME TAX NARAYANA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH Date: 2026.08.05 14:35:16 +05'30'