B.R.T TIGER CONSERVATION FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJANARAGA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1875/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 July 2026AY 2027-285 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored both applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to furnish all required details and receive a reasonable hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act were rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee failed to respond to a show cause notice seeking documents for the 12AB registration.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration under sections 12AB and 80G without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12AA,Section 12A(1)(ac)(i),Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12AB(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 17.02.2026, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore [“learned CIT(E)”], rejecting the applications filed by the assessee seeking registration under section 12AB and section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

ITA No.: 1876/Bang/2026 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. The order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru ["Ld CIT(E)"] rejecting the Form 10AB filed by the Appellant seeking grant of approval under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act") is bad and erroneous and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB and consequently erred in cancelling the registration holding that the Appellant did not have valid registration under section 12AA of the Act as on 31.03.2021 and hence, the registration granted by his predecessor under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act from AY 2022-23 to 2026-27 was defective and irregular. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(E) erred in not appreciating that the Appellant had valid registration under section 12AA of the Act as on 31.03.2021 and hence, the earlier application filed by the Appellant under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was not defective. 4. The CIT(E) erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by rejecting the application on technical grounds and holding it to be void ab-initio and not maintainable without appreciating that application under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) can be rejected only for not fulfilling the conditions under section 12AB(1)(b). 5. The Ld CIT(E) erred in not appreciating that the Appellant was a Society established by the State Government under the provisions of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 for conservation of tigers and biodiversity.

3.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice issued by the learned CIT(E) seeking certain documents in respect of the assessee’s claim for registration under section 12AB of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee’s application seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act was rejected vide impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E). The learned AR undertook that, given another opportunity, the assessee shall furnish all the details in support of its claim of registration under section 12AB of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the learned CIT(E). 5. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the assessee did not furnish complete details as sought by the learned CIT(E). Further, the learned CIT(E) also noted the discrepancy in the registration already granted to the assessee under section 12A of the Act. It is evident from the record that the assessee could not avail the opportunity for a hearing granted by the learned CIT(E). Further, it is not clear if any notice was issued to the assessee prior to finding fault in the registration already granted to the assessee. 6. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish all the details before the learned CIT(E) as may be required for registration under section 12AB of the Act. Accordingly, we restore the application filed by the assessee seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act to the file of the learned CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee, being ITA No. 1876/Bang/2026, is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.: 1875/Bang/2026 8. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the rejection of its application seeking registration under section 80G of the Act. We find that, on a similar basis, the assessee's application for registration under section 80G of the Act was also rejected. Since we have already restored the application seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act to the file of the learned CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, therefore the order of the learned CIT(E) rejecting the application for registration under section 80G is also set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for deciding afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal by the assessee, being ITA No. 1875/Bang/2026, is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. To sum up, both appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24-July-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore Dated, the 24-July-2026. *VM* Copy to: B.R.T TIGER CONSERVATION FOUNDATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR, WILDLIFE 1 DIVISION, SULTHAN SHARIFF CIRCLE, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313, KARNATAKA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), 2 UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD,, BENGALURU-560027, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH 5 GUARD FILE BY ORDER

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., BANGALORE

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →