HUMAN WELFARE FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5031/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 202652 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including providing education, medical facilities, and relief to the poor, were for the benefit of the general public and not restricted to any particular religious community. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had demonstrated that the registration process for schools was not restricted to students of a particular community and that scholarships were provided to students from all communities, with the primary criterion being financial background and academic merit. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s cancellation of registration was based on the observation that the majority of beneficiaries were from a particular religious community, which the Tribunal deemed contrary to the facts. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat and the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT (E) vs. Jamiatul Bannat Tankaria, emphasizing that the expression 'any other object of general public utility' is of the widest connotation and includes all objects that promote the well-being of the general public. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the registrations granted to the assessee under Section 12A, both the original registration and the subsequent one granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i). The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's arguments remained unrebutted and that there was no change in the relevant facts or the assessee's alleged activities. The learned assessing authority was granted liberty to examine all activities in appropriate proceedings as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Human Welfare Foundation, is appealing against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The CIT(E) refused the assessee's application for Section 12A registration and consequently denied Section 80G relief. The CIT(E) alleged that the assessee carried out its activities for the benefit of a particular religious community. The assessee, however, presented a co-ordinate bench's order from April 19, 2025, in its appeals for Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2023-24, which had rejected similar objections raised by the Revenue. The judgment details the procedural history of the cancellation of registration, including show-cause notices and the assessee's detailed replies, culminating in the CIT(E)'s observation of specified violations.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the cancellation of Section 12A registration by the CIT(E) is erroneous, illegal, and unsustainable in law and on facts, particularly concerning alleged violations under Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the CIT(E) erred in holding that the assessee's activities, including scholarships and relief of poor, were for the benefit of a particular religious community, thereby violating Explanation (d) to Section 12AB(4) and Section 13(3) of the Act. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that its objects are for the public at large and not confined to any particular religion or community. Funds are requested from and spent for the benefit of the public at large, irrespective of caste or religion. - The assessee relied on a co-ordinate bench's order dated 19.04.2025 in its appeals for AY 2021-22 and 2023-24, which had rejected the Revenue's objections. - The assessee contended that it raises donations through advertisements and requests direct bank transfers, and cannot be held responsible if donors do not provide details, especially when donations are through banking channels. - The assessee asserted that scholarships are awarded to students from all communities based on financial background and academic merit, and the registration process for schools is not restricted to any particular community. - The assessee cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat and the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT (E) vs. Jamiatul Bannat Tankaria to support its claim that its activities are for general public utility. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue, through the CIT(DR), submitted that the assessee carried out all its activities for the benefit of a particular religious community, and therefore, the impugned twin registrations were rightly refused.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 80G,Section 12AB(4),Section 13(3),Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, CA, Shri Mirza Mohiuddin BAIG, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR
Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5030 & 5031/Del/2026; Assessment Year: 2014-15

Human Welfare Foundation Vs Commissioner of Income D-3/8, Dawat Nagar, Abul Fazal Tax (Exemption), Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Civic Centre, New Delhi- 110 025 Minto Road, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAATH7672R

Assessee by: Shri Mohit Gupta, CA Shri Mirza Mohiuddin BAIG, CA Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 22.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2026 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 5030 & 5031/De/2026, for Assessment Year 2014-15 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) (for short, “CIT(E)”), 50 Lakhs order dated 25.03.2026 passed in DIN & order nos. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1087879587(1), involving proceedings u/s 12A & 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

We note at the outset during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against the learned CIT(E) action refusing section 12A registration followed by his denial of section 80G relief as well being consequential in nature.

3.

That being the case, learned CIT(DR) vehemently submits that it stands duly elaborated in the CIT(E)’s order that the assessee/appellant herein has carried out all of its activities for the benefit of a particular religious community; and, therefore, it has rightly been refused the impugned twin registrations forming subject matter of the tribunal’s apt adjudication.

4.

The assessee, on the other hand, places before us a copy of learned co-ordinate bench’s order dated 19.04.2025 in its appeal ITA No. 2407 & 2406/Del/2026 relating to the assessment years 2021-211 & 2023-24 inter alia rejecting the Revenue’s very objections; as under:

“

5.

All these clinching developments have gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. It rather emerges that the learned CIT(E) has duly referred the earlier proceedings in his section 12A order under challenge itself. Be that as it may, we do not find either any change in the relevant facts or the assessee’s alleged activities carried out all along. It is thus concluded that it is very much entitled to claim both section 12A as well as 80 registration herein in very terms therefore. Needless to say, the learned assessing authority shall indeed be at liberty to examine all of its activities in appropriate proceedings as per law.

6.

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 5030 & 5031/De/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →