MACHIMANDA MADAPPA AND AKKAMMA MADAPPA CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-2, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

MACHIMANDA MADAPPA AND AKKAMMA MADAPPA CHARITABLE TRUST [Assessee/Trust/Appellant] has filed these two appeals before us. The first appeal is against the order dated 18 December 2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru, rejecting the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB dated 9 October 2025 for registration under section 12AB read with section 12A (1) (ac)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The application was rejected on the grounds that the assessee had already been granted registration under section 12AB on 5 April 2022, valid from assessment year 2022-23 to assessment year 2026- 27, pursuant to an application filed under section 12A (1) (ac)(i). According to the learned Commissioner, this showed that the assessee did not hold any prior registration under the erstwhile provisions of section 12AA and, therefore, clause (ii) was applicable only to trusts already registered under those provisions. Since the assessee did not have registration under the erstwhile section 12AA, it was held ineligible to file an application under that category, and the application was accordingly rejected. 2. The assessee’s application under section 80G was also rejected by order dated 18 December 2025, giving rise to the second appeal before us. 3. The assessee therefore filed appeals before us on both issues, raising the following grounds of appeal: -

The impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions], Bengaluru in Form No. 10AD dated 18/12/2025 in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in rejecting the approval/ registration granted to the Appellant Trust under Section 80G of the Act vide the impugned order in Form No. 10AD dated 18/12/2025 on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The impugned order in Form No. 10AD dated 18/12/2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] is beyond jurisdiction and needs to be quashed on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is eligible/ entitled for renewal of approval u/s. 80G of the Act which may kindly be granted or directed to be granted to the Appellant for advancement of substantial cause of justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in holding that the approval granted u/s. 80G on 05/04/2022 is wrongly obtained on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in holding that the Appellant has obtained the approval granted originally through an ineligible and non-maintainable application since the original application for approval was filed under the incorrect section code thereby holding the application as defective on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in sitting in judgement of the original application filed for approval u/s. 80G dated 28/03/2022 which was considered and approval was granted vide Form No. 10AC dated 05/04/2022 on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in holding that due to wrong mention of section code in the original application for approval, the Appellant was never given approval under Section 80G and in further holding that the present application filed in Form No. 10AB as void ab initio on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in law and on facts in holding that the Appellant has not met the statutory conditions required for continuation of approval on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] ought to have appreciated that the application in Form 10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to 80G (5) of the Act made in the present case is valid in as much as there is a valid and subsisting approval granted by the department under Section 80G vide Form 10AC dated 05.04.2022 and the efficacy of the same continues till date without being cancelled or withdrawn in accordance with law.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in rejecting the approval granted u/s. 80G by only taking a hyper technical view of the matter on the facts and circumstances of the case.

For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.

The impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions], Bengaluru in Form No. 10AD dated 18/12/2025 in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in rejecting the registration granted to the Appellant Trust under Section 12AB of the Act vide the impugned order in Form No. 10AD dated 18/12/2025 on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The impugned order in Form No. 10AD dated 18/12/2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] is beyond jurisdiction and needs to be quashed on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is eligible/ entitled for renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act which may kindly be granted or directed to be granted to the Appellant for Page 2 of 3 advancement of substantial cause of justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in holding that the registration granted u/s. 12AB on 05/04/2022 is wrongly obtained on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in holding that the Appellant has obtained the registration granted originally through an ineligible and non-maintainable application since the original application for registration was filed under the incorrect section code thereby holding the application as defective on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in sitting in judgement of the original application filed for registration u/s. 12AB dated 28/03/2022 which was considered and registration was granted vide Form No. 10AC dated 05/04/2022 on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in holding that due to wrong mention of section code in the original application for registration, the Appellant was never registered under Section 12AA and in further holding that the present application filed in Form No. 10AB as void ab initio on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Exemptions] erred in law and on facts in holding that the Appellant has not met the statutory conditions required for continuation of registration on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 3 of 3

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] ought to have appreciated that the application in Form 10AB under section 12A (1) (AC)(ii) of the Act made in the present case is valid in as much as there is a valid and subsisting registration granted by the department under section 12AB vide Form 10AC dated 05.04.2022 and the efficacy of the same continues till date without being cancelled or withdrawn in accordance with law.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in rejecting the registration granted u/s. 12AB by only taking a hyper technical view of the matter on the facts and circumstances of the case.

For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice 4. The assessee, a charitable trust, filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 9 October 2025 seeking registration under section 12AB with section 12A (1) (ac)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(Exemptions) granted the assessee an opportunity and required it to submit documents to establish the genuineness of its activities and compliance with the requirements of any other law material to achieve its objects. On verification, the learned CIT(Exemptions) noted that the assessee had already been granted registration under section 12AB on 5 April 2022, valid from assessment year 2022-23 to assessment year 2026-27, pursuant to an application filed under section 12A (1) (ac)(i). He further found that the assessee did not hold any prior registration under the erstwhile provisions of section 12AA. He held that clause (ii) applied only to trusts already registered under section 12AA and, therefore, the assessee was not eligible to apply under that category. He accordingly viewed the earlier registration as having been obtained through an ineligible and non-maintainable application. By note-sheet entry, he issued notice stating that the present application was void ab initio because the clause presupposed the existence of a valid registration under clause (i). Since the assessee failed to establish eligibility, and since the registration granted under section 12AB on 5 April 2022 was considered wrongly obtained, he held that the statutory conditions for continuation of registration were not satisfied and rejected the application. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before us. The learned authorized representative, Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate, filed a paper book containing 35 pages and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the coordinate benches in Swaraj Foundation, 176 taxmann.com 329, Devayani Trust, 177 taxmann.com 594, and Karnataka State Diploma in Nursing Examination Board v. CIT(Exemptions), ITA No. 161/Bang/2025, dated 9 June 2025. He submitted that the learned CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application merely because an incorrect section was inadvertently mentioned, which was hyper- technical ground. He therefore requested that the learned CIT(Exemptions) be directed to treat the application as filed under the correct clause. He also relied on several coordinate bench decisions holding that an error in selecting the section code while filing Form No. 10A is only a technical default, and that rejection of the application without giving the trust an opportunity to rectify such procedural lapse is not justified. 6. He further submitted that, if given an opportunity, the assessee would correct the application and submit it before the learned CIT(Exemptions), who may then consider it on merits. The assessee has no objection to such course.

The learned CIT-DR strongly supported the order of the learned CIT(Exemptions). He submitted that where the assessee does not file the application in the prescribed format or cite the correct provision of law, such application is liable to be rejected in the manner adopted by the learned CIT(Exemptions). He further submitted that this is not a case where no show- cause notice was issued before rejection; despite such opportunity, the assessee did not correct the application. He pointed out that the relevant note- sheet entry has also been recorded in the order of the learned CIT(Exemptions). 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In the present case, the learned CIT(Exemptions) rejected the assessee’s application on the ground that the assessee was not entitled to seek registration before him under the clause invoked. We find that the application was rejected on hyper-technical grounds without granting the assessee an effective opportunity to rectify the defect. Had such opportunity been given, the matter could have been examined on merits. In these circumstances, without considering the judicial precedents cited by the learned authorized representative, we restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(Exemptions). The assessee is directed to file the correct application, mentioning the proper provision of law. If the learned CIT(Exemptions) finds the application to be in order, he shall consider it on merit after verifying the genuineness of the objects and activities of the trust and its compliance with the other requirements prescribed under the Act. Accordingly, the appeal relating to rejection of registration under section 12AB is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The second appeal concerns rejection of the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G (5) of the Act. This issue is consequential to grant of registration under section 12AB, which we have considered in the preceding appeal. We therefore direct the assessee to substantiate before the learned CIT(Exemptions) its eligibility for approval under section 80G (5), consequent upon its application for registration under section 12AB being considered. The learned CIT(Exemptions) shall examine the same on merits in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.