SARVODAYA CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1733/BANG/2025Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 July 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the trustees' medical unfitness. It found that the assessee had submitted information before the Assessing Officer, but this might not have been considered before the CIT(E) passed the order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sarvodaya Charitable Trust, appealed against the rejection of its applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The rejection was based on the jurisdictional Assessing Officer's report stating that the assessee failed to furnish required details.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval was justified when the assessee claimed to have submitted the required documents, and whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, बेंगऱुरू पीठें, बेंगऱुरू INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE BENCH: B BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 1733& 1734/BANG/2025 ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year : NA) SARVODAYA CHARITABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TRUST TAX(EXEMPTIONS) NO. 177, 6TH CROSS, UNITY BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR, K G MISSION ROAD, Vs. ROAD,BANGALORE-560009, BANGALORE-560001, KARNATAKA KARNATAKA अऩीऱधथीAppellant प्रत्यथीRespondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ABATS4547F

अऩीऱधथी द्वधरध/Appellant represented by: Shri Kalpesh Nahar CA प्रत्यथी द्वधरध/Respondent represented by: Sri. Shashidhara N.S. C.I.T. सुनवधई की तधरीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 08-Jun-2026 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date of pronouncement: 22-Jul-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT : 1. Sarvodaya Charitable Trust files these two appeals [ the Assessee/ Trust/ Appellant] against the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore *“learned CIT(E)”+. In the first appeal, the learned CIT(E), by order in Form No. 10 AD, rejected the assessee’s application dated 26 June 2024 for registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [the Act] and also cancelled the provisional registration already granted to the assessee. The second appeal relates to the order dated 18 December 2024 passed by the learned CIT(E) in Form No. 10 AD, rejecting the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB dated 26 June 2024 for approval under section 80G (5) of the Act. 2. The respective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

ITA 1733/BANG/2025: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions), Bangalore has erred in passing the impugned order in the manner passed by him. The order passed being bad in law, erroneous without considering the facts and is liable to be quashed.

2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application filed for Registration U/s. 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the grounds that:

i) The appellant has not respondent to the notices sent calling for details & documents.

In contrast, the appellant has submitted the required documents asked for. On proper appreciation of facts of the case and the law applicable, the appellant is entitled for registration and hence, the conclusion drawn being contrary to facts and law applicable are to be disregarded and the appellant be granted Registration U/s. 12AB of 1.T. Act, 1961.

2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is eligible for the registration U/s. 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 and same is to be granted to it.

2.3 The appellant is a genuine Trust and has complied totally with the provisions of law to enable itself to get the Registration U/s. 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the rejection of application filed by the appellant on a totally erroneous appreciation of facts and the law is to be quashed.

3.

In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that the impugned order be quashed, and it be held that the appellant is entitled to registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.

ITA 1734/BANG/2025:

1.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions), Bangalore has erred in passing the impugned order in the manner passed by him. The order passed being bad in law, erroneous without considering the facts and is liable to be quashed.

2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application filed for Registration U/s. 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the grounds that:

i) The appellant has not submitted any proof or evidence of activities carried out by it. ii) The appellant could not prove genuineness of the activities of the trust.

2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is eligible for the registration U/s, 80G of the LT. Act, 1961 and same is to be granted to it.

2.3 The appellant is a genuine Trust and has complied totally with the provisions of law to enable itself to get the Registration U/s. 80G of the LT. Act, 1961. Therefore, the rejection of application filed by the appellant on a totally erroneous appreciation of facts and the law is to be quashed.

3.

In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that the impugned order be quashed, and it be held that the appellant is entitled to registration u/s. 80G of the Act.

3.

The orders of the learned CIT(E) are dated 18 December 2024 and were served on the assessee on the same date. Since the appeals were filed on 4 August 2025, there has been a delay of 157 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay. It is stated that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, primarily because several trustees were medically unfit during the relevant period. Their medical condition prevented them from effectively participating in the preparation and filing of the appeals. The assessee has also filed an affidavit of the managing trustee in support of this explanation. 4. The learned authorized representative, Shri Kalpesh Nahar, Chartered Accountant, submitted that sufficient cause existed for the delay and that the same deserves to be condoned. 5. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri Shashidhara N.S., CIT(DR), strongly opposed the request and submitted that the delay of 157 days is substantial. According to him, the assessee has given only general reasons and has not explained the delay on a day-to-day basis. He therefore submitted that the delay should not be condoned. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the assessee’s explanation for the 157-day delay. The assessee has stated that certain trustees were unwell, were undergoing medical treatment, and, on medical advice, could not attend to the filing of the appeals. The affidavit filed by the managing trustee supports this explanation. We therefore find that the medical condition of the trustees prevented the assessee from filing the appeals within time. The explanation is bona fide and reasonable and constitutes sufficient cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit both appeals. 7. The facts show that the assessee is a charitable trust which filed Form No. 10AB on 26 June 2024 seeking registration under section 12AB of the Income- tax Act. The learned CIT(E) referred the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for verification. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued letters/notices to the assessee on three occasions by email and post, calling for details and documents. The learned CIT(E), however, recorded that the assessee did not furnish any reply to those notices and therefore rejected the application for registration. The application for approval under section 80G (5) met the same fate. 8. The learned authorized representative submitted a paper book containing 38 pages. The assessee’s case is that, on 16 December 2024, it submitted the required details, including a self-certified copy of the order granting provisional registration, the trust deed, PAN, registration with the Government of Karnataka, bank account details, and return-filing details.

Despite this, the learned CIT(E), relying on the report of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, held that no information had been furnished. The assessee therefore contended that, although all details had been filed before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the report was incorrect and the learned CIT(E) decided the application without properly verifying the material on record. 9. The learned CIT(DR) submitted that the assessee had not furnished the required details before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. On that basis, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer reported non-compliance, and the learned CIT(E) rightly noted that the assessee had failed to furnish information and dismissed the applications. He submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders of the learned CIT(E). 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee’s applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G (5) were rejected only on the grounds that, as per the report of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the assessee had not furnished the required information. However, the paper book placed before us contains an acknowledged copy of the assessee’s letter dated 20 November 2024, filed before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 16 December 2024, enclosing 14 details required for the report to the learned CIT(E). However, it is found that that ld CIT E passed orders on 16/12/2024. This shows that the report submitted by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was correct. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued the last letter on 11 November 2024, but the record does not show when the report was submitted to the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) passed the order on 18 December 2024, while the assessee’s acknowledged submission is dated 16 December 2024. It therefore appears that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer may not have considered the information submitted by the assessee before sending the report, as it was not available to him then, resulting in rejection of the applications. 11. Since the assessee has now shown that the information was submitted before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, we consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E). The assessee shall submit the information once again before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer or the learned CIT(E), as directed by the learned CIT(E). The authority concerned shall examine the same and, if found in order, reconsider the assessee’s applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G (5) of the Income-tax Act, in accordance with the law.

12.

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL PRASHANT MAHARISHI JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore Dated: 22nd July, 2026 *TNTS* Copy to: SARVODAYA CHARITABLE TRUST, NO. 177, 6TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, 1 K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009, KARNATAKA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) 2 UNITY BUILDING, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560001, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE CIT(APPEALS) 5 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALOREBENCH

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 →