MITE FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION RESEARCH AND STARTUPS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY,MANGALURU vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the ld. CIT (Exemptions) Bangalore both dated 12.11.2025 vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1082554706(1) rejecting the application filed for registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) and vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1082554753(1) rejecting the application filed for approval u/s 80G of the Act. Since the issues involved in these appeals are inter related & dependent on the outcome of other, these are clubbed together, heard together &

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 2 of 19 disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity.

Ground No.1 – Objects are educational and Charitable:

The learned CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant's objects are intrinsically connected with education, skill development, and promotion Of entrepreneurship among poor and deserving students through incubation facilities and support, falling within section 2(15) of the Act.

It is respectfully submitted that in the case of a Section 8 Company, all essential charitable safeguards are statutorily embedded in the governing framework of the Companies Act, 2013 itself, The charitable character, nonprofit orientation, application of income solely towards objects, prohibition on distribution of profits, restrictions on alteration of objects, mandatory audit, and compulsory transfer Of assets upon dissolution are not optional clauses but are inherent and mandatory consequences of incorporation under Section 8. Accordingly, the charitable objectives and safeguards are already embedded by default in a Section 8 Company by operation of law, and do not require reiteration through additional trust-style clauses in the Memorandum or Articles of Association.

Ground No.2 – Finding of “No Activities since inception” is factually incorrect:

The learned CIT(E) erred in holding that the appellant has not carried out any charitable activities. The appellant has already commenced activities and has applied Rs.1,75,000/- on 21-07-2025 towards supporting a startup venture (YAASKA AGROTECH LLP) as part of its charitable incubation programme. The finding is therefore perverse and contrary to record. The appellant further submits that the support extended to YAASKA AGROTECH LLP On 21.07.2025 was not a commercial investment or profitoriented funding, but a structured incubation support extended pursuant to the appellant's educational and charitable objects. The support Was provided to enable students and young innovators to establish startup ventures by offering financial assistance along with access to infrastructure facilities such as Office Space, power, water and internet, which squarely constitutes charitable application of income' under section 11(1)(a) of the Act.

The learned CIT(E) erred in failing to appreciate that the appellant has already applied its income for charitable purposes within the meaning of section 11 of the Act by extending financial and infrastructural incubation support of Rs.1,75,000/-

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 3 of 19 on 21.07.2025 to a startup venturepromoted by young innovators. The finding that no charitable activity has been carried out is therefore contrary to facts and law. Ground No.3 – Application of income under section 11 ignored:

The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid expenditure constitutes application of income for Charitable purposes under Section 11(1)(a). The rejection overlooks actual utilisation of funds towards charitable objects.

Ground No.4 – Even otherwise, Non-Commencement is not a ground for rejection:

Without prejudice, the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications merely on the ground that activities were allegedly not commenced- It is settled law, as held by the Madras High Court in DIT(E) v. Seer-vi Samqj Tambaram Trust, that registration/approval cannot be denied solely on this ground. The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application Contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in v. Seervi Samaj Tambaram Trust, wherein it has been held that registration cannot be denied merely because activities have not commenced and that the statute provides for cancellation if activities are subsequently found to be non-genuine.

Ground No. 5 — Binding CBDT Circular Ignored

The learned CIT(E) failed to follow CBOT Circular No. 11/2019, which clarifies that at the Stage Of registration, examination is confined to objects and genuineness, and not to insist upon actual activities, especially in the case of newly established entities.

Ground No. 6 — Delav Condonation Properly Filed but Not Considered

The learned CIT(E) erred in alleging delay in filing Without appreciating that the application was filed in "WITH CONDONATION" mode in Form IOAB and that reasons for delay Were duly explained. The impugned orders do not adjudicate the condonation request at all.

Ground No.7 – Darpan Registration not a statutory requirement

The learned CIT(E) erred in treating non-submission of Darpan registration as a deficiency. Dar-pan registration is not prescribed under Sections 12AB or 80G. Without prejudice, the appellant has applied for Dar-pan registration, demonstrating bona fide compliance.

Ground No. 8 — NO Valid Show Cause Notice Issued

The learned CIT(E) erred in recording that a Show Cause notice was issued on 17.10.2025. NO written SCN was ever issued or served. An Oral direction cannot

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 4 of 19 substitute a statutory show cause notice, rendering the rejection violative of natural justice. Ground No.9 – Reasonable Opportunity of being heard not granted

Reasonable opportunity of being heard not being provided, particularly in the context Of Section 12AB(1)(b)(i & ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, The learned Assessing Officer did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting an application for registration under Section 12AB. The learned CIT(E) erred in alleging non-appearance on 06.11.2025, when the authority itself was unavailable on 06.11.2025 and 07.11.2025 due to pre- scheduled meetings, thereby denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and vitiating the proceedings.

Hence, the finding that no appearance or submission was made is factually incorrect and violates principles of natural justice.

The learned CIT(E) erred in alleging non-appearance on 06.11.2025, when the authority itself was unavailable on 06.11.2025 and 07.11.2025 due to pre- scheduled meetings. The rejection therefore violates the mandatory requirement of reasonable opportunity.

The learned CIT(E) erred in holding that genuineness of activities was not explained. In fact, a detailed and comprehensive reply was submitted in response to the notice dated 15.10.2025, fully addressing the genuineness of objects and proposed activities along with supporting documents. The same has not been referred to or discussed in the impugned order. Ground No. 10 — Orders Are Mechanical and Non-Speaking The impugned orders fail to deal with the appellant's replies, documents, commencement of activities, statutory compliance, and binding judicial precedents, and are therefore unsustainable in law. Ground No. 11 - Proceedings Vitiated by Cumulative procedural irregularities:

The impugned orders are vitiated by cumulative procedural lapses including non- issuance of a written show cause notice, non-adjudication of delay condonation request, non-consideration of replies filed, and denial Of effective hearing, rendering the orders unsustainable in law Ground No.12 – Commencement of activities:

Contrary to the claim of non-commencement of activities, the appellant has already undertaken substantial steps toward achieving its objectives, including: Compliance with Legal Requirements: The appellant has submitted all relevant documents, including payment receipts, permissions, and construction evidence, and has complied with all requirements of the law.

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 5 of 19 The appellant demonstrated both the genuineness of its activities and compliance with other laws relevant to achieving its objectives, b) Contrary to the finding recorded in the impugned orders that no activities Were carried out since inception, the appellant has commenced its charitable activities. In furtherance of its objects, the appellant provided financial assistance of Rs.1,75,000/- on 21.07.2025 to YAASKA AGROTECH LLP, a startup venture, as part of its incubation and startup- support programme. The said payment represents application of income for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The appellant further submits that the support extended to YAASKA AGROTECH LLP on 21.07-2025 was not a commercial investment or profit-oriented funding, but a structured incubation support extended pursuant to the appellant's educational and charitable objects. The support was provided to enable students and young innovators to establish startup ventures by offering financial assistance along with access to infrastructure facilities such as office space, power, water and internet, which squarely constitutes charitable 'application of income' under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Ground No.13 : The learned Assessing Officer has erred in not considering the facts & grounds correctly While passing the rejection order. Grouind No.14: The appellant craves leave to add, to amend and/or alter any of the foregoing grounds and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that • The rejection order passed by the Assessing Officer for renewal of registration under Section 12AB be quashed. • The application for registration under Section 12AB be allowed. Relief claimed: In View Of the facts of the Case, the grounds Of appeal urged, the settled legal position, and the admitted facts on record, the Appellant humbly prays that the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to: 1. Set aside and quash the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejecting the application for registration under Section 12ABof the Income-tax Act, 1961; 2. Grant registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the Appellant, being a Section 8 Company which has complied with all

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 6 of 19 statutory requirements and whose objects and activities are charitable and genuine; 3. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 7 of 19

3.1 The Corporate Identity Number (CIN) of the company is U85300KA2021NPL155189. The assessee company was granted provisional Registration under sub clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Act on 08/02/2022 vide Unique Registration Number (URN) AAPCM2452EE20218 effective from AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25. The assessee company was also granted provisional approval under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act on 11/02/2022 vide Unique Registration Number (URN) AAPCM2452EF20224 effective from 11/02/2022 to AY 2024-25. The assessee company is registered on the Darpan Portal as NPO vide Darpan ID KA/2026/0889069 dated 10/01/2026.

3.2 The assessee applied for final registration/approval in a separate application in Form 10AB for registration u/s 12AB & approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. It is submitted that the applications were filed by selecting the "WITH CONDONATION" option available on the Income-tax portal, and a detailed delay condonation explanation was duly submitted along with the forms. On the receipt of the application in Form 10AB for Registration as well as for approval, the assessee was granted opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). As observed by the ld. CIT(E), the AR of the assessee trust appeared on 17/10/2025 & submitted certain documents in support of the application. Further, on examination of the documents and financial statements submitted, the ld. CIT(E) observed as follows-

i) The trust has not carried out any charitable activities since its inception.

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 8 of 19 ii) The financial records indicate no expenditure or engagement towards the stated charitable objects.

iii) There has been a delay in filing the application.

iv) No Activity Report furnished.

v) No copy of Darpan registration has been furnished.

In view of these deficiencies, a show cause notice was issued in the note sheet dated 17/10/2025 requiring the assessee to appear on 06/11/2025 and explain the reasons for the above non compliances. However, on the scheduled date of hearing, no one appeared nor was any written submission received and accordingly in the absence of any satisfactory explanation or evidence of genuine charitable activity, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications filed for registration u/s 12AB as well as for approval u/s 80G of the Act.

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 9 of 19 objects and proposed activities along with supporting documents, the impugned order does not refer to or discuss the said reply at all. Further, it is submitted that the Authorized Representative appeared in person on 17.10.2025 before the ld. CIT(E) and submitted documents in support of the applications. This fact has been expressly admitted by the learned CIT(E) in the impugned orders. It is also submitted that during the course of hearing on 17.10.2025, the assessee was orally advised to submit further documents by 06.11.2025. No written show cause notice was issued, uploaded on ITBA, emailed, or served on the assessee at any point of time. The AR of the assessee submitted that no written Show Cause Notice was ever issued at any stage of the proceedings. The alleged reference in the impugned order to a 'show cause notice issued in the note sheet dated 17.10.2025' is factually incorrect. At best, an oral request was made during the personal hearing to furnish certain documents by 06.11.2025. An oral direction cannot substitute a statutory show cause notice, nor can it form the basis for adverse action. Further, on 06.11.2025 and 07.11.2025, the office of the ld. CIT(E) was unavailable due to pre-scheduled official meetings, and therefore no effective opportunity of hearing or submission was possible on those dates and accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. CIT(E).

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 10 of 19 observed that the ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications in form 10AB for registration as well as for approval on the following grounds-

i) The trust has not carried out any charitable activities since its inception. ii) The financial records indicate no expenditure or engagement towards the stated charitable objects. iii) There has been a delay in filing the application. iv) No Activity Report furnished. v) No copy of Darpan registration has been furnished.

6.1 Now first we are taking into consideration the allegations of the ld. CIT(E) with regard to (i) & (ii) above i.e. the trust had not carried out any charitable activities since its inception & financial records indicate no expenditure or engagement towards charitable objects. On perusal of the Form 10AB filed for the registration, we also observed that the assessee company itself in response to “Any other” at sl. No. 12 declared that since incorporation, the section 8 company has not commenced any charitable activities. However, we also observed that in the same sl. No.12 of form 10AB, the assessee had attached notes on activities by named “(MITE- FIRST).pdf”. Further, before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee had already commenced its charitable activities. In fact in furtherance of its objects, the assessee trust provided the financial assistance of 1,75,000/- on 21.07.2025 to YAASKA AGROTECH LLP, a startup venture, as part of its incubation and startup-support programme. The said payment represents application of income for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The AR of the assessee further submitted that the support extended to YAASKA AGROTECH LLP on 21.07.2025 was not a commercial investment or profit-oriented funding, but a structured incubation support

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 11 of 19 extended pursuant to the assessee's educational and charitable objects. Before us, the assessee had filed a paper book containing therein the various documents & records including the bank statement which is reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience:-

On going through the above bank statement, we observed that the assessee trust had received Rs. 15,00,000/- from Mangalore Institute of Technology on 16/07/2025 i.e. after the filing of the applications in form 10AB on 23/06/2025 for registration u/s 12AB of the Act & on 02/07/2025 for approval u/s 80G of the Act. Further, we also observed that on 21/07/2025, the assessee

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 12 of 19 company had also spent an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- & paid the same to one YAASKA Agrotech LLP. The assessee company claimed to have provided the support to enable students and young innovators to establish startup ventures by offering financial assistance along with access to infrastructure facilities such as office space, power, water and internet, which squarely constitutes charitable 'application of income' under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Thus, we take a note of the fact that as the application/expenditure as made by the assessee company for the first time on 21/07/2025 i.e. during the pendency of the registration/approval proceedings before the ld. CIT(E), & therefore the assessee company had rightly mentioned in the application form No. 10AB that since incorporation, the section 8 company has not commenced any charitable activities. However, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(E) failed to verify all these facts while rejecting the application for registration/approval. We are of the considered opinion that even if during the pendency of the proceedings before the ld. CIT(E), the assessee company commenced its activity towards the furtherance of the objects of the trust, the ld. CIT(E) must considered the same for granting the registration.

6.2 Now with regard to the another allegation of the ld. CIT(E) that there has been delay in filing the application, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(E) grossly erred in ignoring the application for the condonation filed by the assessee along with the application in form 10AB. On perusal of the form 10AB filed by the assessee, we observed that in response to reason for delay in filing at sl. No. 13, the assessee had given detailed explanations. The ld. CIT(E) did not even whisper a single word about this delay condonation explanation submitted by the assessee & surprisingly taken the same as a ground for the rejection for registration & approval without passing speaking order. We agree with the

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 13 of 19 contentions of the ld. AR of the assessee that the applications for final registration & approval were filed by the assessee trust by selecting the "WITH CONDONATION" option available on the Income-tax portal, and a detailed delay condonation explanation was duly submitted along with the forms which were not considered by the ld. CIT(E). We are fully aware of the fact that in order to mitigate genuine hardship to such funds and institutions, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from time to time issued the circulars condoning the delay in filing the form 10A/10AB recent being circular No. 1/2026 & 6/2026. Therefore, in our considered opinion the ld. CIT(E) should have considered the explanation given in the application & condoned the delay in filing the form 10AB.

6.3 Now with regard to the another allegation of the ld. CIT(E) that no activity report has been furnished by the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that when the assessee trust commenced its activity itself on 21/07/2025 i.e. at the time of proceedings pending before the ld. CIT(E) after receiving fund from Mangalore Institute of Technology on 16/07/2025, then we are unable to understand what sort of other activity report were required at the time of granting registration. We also observed that the assessee company had in sl. No.12 of the form 10AB, had attached notes on activities by named “(MITE-FIRST).pdf”. Therefore, we find no merits in the contention of the ld. CIT(E).

6.4 Lastly, we are surprised to note that one of the allegation of the ld. CIT(E) in rejecting the form nos. 10AB filed for registration & approval is that the assessee could not furnished the copy of the Darpan registration. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee Trust has proactively

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 14 of 19 amended its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association to expressly incorporate all clauses typically expected under the Income-tax Act for charitable institutions, and has also applied for Darpan registration, although the same is not a statutory requirement. Even we failed to understand under which of the provisions of the Act the copy of the Darpan registration is required for granting registration u/s 12AB as well as approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act ? Despite that, the assessee before us submitted a copy of the Darpan Registration certificate dated 10/01/2026 vide Darpan ID- KA/2026/0889069 i.e. obtained after the rejection of the registration & approval.

6.5 Now coming to the contentions of the ld. AR of the assessee that an oral direction cannot substitute a statutory show cause notice, nor can it form the basis for adverse action. Further, it is contended that on 06.11.2025 and 07.11.2025, the office of the ld. CIT(E) was unavailable due to pre-scheduled official meetings, and therefore no effective opportunity of hearing or submission was possible on those dates and accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. CIT(E). This being so, in the interest of justice, equity & fairplay, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issues of registration to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with the above observations & direct to grant registration in accordance with law after due verification. Needless, to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 15 of 19

Ground No.1 – Objects are educational and charitable

The learned CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant's Objects are intrinsically connected with education, skill development, and promotion Of entrepreneurship among poor and deserving students through incubation facilities and support, falling within section 2(15) Of the Act. It is respectfully submitted that in the case of a Section 8 Company, all essential charitable safeguards are statutorily embedded in the governing framework of the Companies Act, 2013 itself. The charitable character, nonprofit orientation, application of income solely towards objects, prohibition on distribution of profits, restrictions on alteration of objects, mandatory audit, and compulsory transfer of assets upon dissolution are not optional clauses but are inherent and mandatory consequences of incorporation under Section 8. Accordingly, the charitable objectives and safeguards are already embedded by default in a Section 8 Company by operation of law, and do not require reiteration through additional trust-style clauses in the Memorandum or Articles of Association.

Ground NO, 2 — Finding of “No activities since inception” is factually incorrect

The learned CIT(E) erred in holding that the appellant has not carried out any charitable activities. The appellant has already commenced activities and has applied Rs.l,75,000/- on 21.07.2025 towards supporting a startup venture (YAASKA AGROTECH LLP) as part of its charitable incubation programme. The finding is therefore perverse and contrary to record.

The appellant further submits that the support extended to YAASKA AGROTECH LLP on 21.07.2025 Was not a commercial investment or profitoriented funding, but a structured incubation support extended pursuant to the appellant's educational and charitable objects, The support was provided to enable students and young innovators to establish startup ventures by offering financial assistance along with access to infrastructure facilities such as office space, power, water and internet, which squarely constitutes charitable 'application of income' under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The learned CIT(E) erred in failing to appreciate that the appellant hasalready applied its income for charitable purposes within the meaning of section 11(l)(a) of the Act by extending financial and infrastructural incubation support of on 21.07.2025 to a startup venture promoted by young innovators. The finding that no charitable activity has been carried out is therefore contrary to facts and law.

Ground NO, 3 — Application of Income under section 11 ignored

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 16 of 19

The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid expenditure constitutes application of income for Charitable purposes under Section 11(1)(a). The rejection overlooks actual utilisation of funds towards charitable objects.

Ground No.4 – Even otherwise, Non-Commencement is not a ground for rejection

Without prejudice, the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications merely on the ground that activities were allegedly not commenced. It is settled law, as held by the Madras High Court in DIT(E) V. Seerüi Samaj Tambaram Trust, that registration/approval cannot be denied solely on this ground.

The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in DIT(E) v. Seervi Samaj rambaram Trust, wherein it has been held that registration cannot be denied merely because activities have not commenced and that the statute provides for cancellation if activities are subsequently found to be non- Ground NO. 5 — Binding CBDT Circular Ignored The learned CIT(E) failed to follow CBDT Circular No. 11/2019, which clarifies that at the stage of registration, examination is confined to Objects and genuineness, and not to insist upon actual activities, especially in the Case of newly established entities. Ground No.6 – Delay condonation properly filed but not considered

The learned CIT(E) erred in alleging delay in filing without appreciating that the application was filed in "WITH CONDONATION" mode in Form IOAB and that reasons for delay were duly explained. The impugned orders do not adjudicate the condonation request at all. Ground No.7 – Darpan Registration Not a statutory requirement

The learned CIT(E) erred in treating non-submission of Darpan registration as a deficiency. Darpan registration is not prescribed under Sections 12AB or 80G. Without prejudice, the appellant has applied for Darpan registration, demonstrating bona fide compliance. Ground No.8 — No Valid Show Cause Notice Issued The learned CIT(E) erred in recording that a show cause notice was issued on 17.10.2025. NO written SCN was ever issued or served. An oral direction cannot substitute a statutory show cause notice, rendering the rejection violative of natural justice. Ground No.9 – Reasonable opportunity of being heard not granted

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 17 of 19 Reasonable opportunity of being heard not being provided, particularly in the context Of Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Assessing Officer did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting an application renewal of approval under Section 80G. The learned CIT(E) erred in alleging non-appearance on 06.11.2025, when the authority itself was unavailable on 06.11.2025 and 07.11.2025 due to pre- scheduled meetings, thereby denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and vitiating the proceedings. Hence, the finding that no appearance or submission was made is factually incorrect and violates principles of natural justice. The learned CIT(E) erred in alleging non-appearance on 06.11.2025, When the authority itself was unavailable on 06.11.2025 and 07.11.2025 due to pre- scheduled meetings. The rejection therefore violates the mandatory requirement of reasonable opportunity. The learned CIT(E) erred in holding that genuineness of activities was not explained. In fact, a detailed and comprehensive reply Was submitted in response to the notice dated 15.10.2025, fully addressing the genuineness of objects and proposed activities along with supporting documents. The Same has not been referred to or discussed in the impugned order. Ground NO. 10 — Orders Are Mechanical endNon-Speaking The impugned orders fail to deal with the appellant's replies, documents, commencement of activities, statutory compliance, and binding judicial precedents, and are therefore unsustainable in law. Ground No.11 – Proceedings vitiated by cumulative procedural irregularities: The impugned orders are Vitiated by cumulative procedural lapses including non-issuance of a written show cause notice, non-adjudication of delay condonation request, non-consideration of replies filed, and denial of effective hearing, rendering the orders unsustainable in law Ground No.12 – Commencement of activities: Contrary to the claim of non-commencement of activities, the appellant has already undertaken substantial steps toward achieving its objectives, including: a) Compliance with Legal Requirements: The appellant has submitted all relevant documents, including payment receipts, permissions, and construction evidence, and has complied with all requirements of the law. The appellant demonstrated both the genuineness of its activities and Compliance with Other laws relevant to achieving its objectives. b) Contrary to the finding recorded in the impugned orders that no activities were carried out since inception, the appellant has commenced its charitable activities. In furtherance of its Objects, the appellant provided financial assistance of Rs.1,75,000/- on 21.07.2025 to YAASKA AGROTECH LLP, a startup venture, as part of its incubation and startup-support programme. The said payment represents application of

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 18 of 19 income for Charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The appellant further submits that the support extended to YAASKA AGROTECH LLP on 21.07.2025 was not a commercial investment or profit-oriented funding, but a structured incubation support extended pursuant to the appellant's educational and charitable objects. The support was provided to enable students and young innovators to establish Startup ventures by offering financial assistance along with access to infrastructure facilities such as office space, power, water and internet, which squarely constitutes charitable 'application of income' under section Of the Act. Ground No.13: The learned Assessing Officer has erred in not considering the facts & grounds correctly while passing the rejection order. Ground No.14: The appellant craves leave to add, to amend and/or alter any of the foregoing grounds and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that • The rejection order passed by the Assessing Officer for renewal of approval under Section 80G be quashed. • The application for approval under Section 80G be allowed. Relief claimed: In view of the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal urged, the settled legal position. and the admitted facts on record, the Appellant humbly prays that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to: I. Set aside and quash the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejecting the application for renewal of approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961; 2. Grant approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the Appellant, being a Section 8 Company which has complied with all statutory requirements and whose objects and activities are charitable and genuine; 3. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

ITA No.271 & 276/Bang/2026 MITE Foundation for Innovation Research and Startups through Technology, Dakshina Kannada Page 19 of 19 the ld. CIT(E) with the above observations & direct to grant approval in accordance with law after due verification. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 31st July, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.