P D MEMORIAL RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,BAHADURGARH,HARYANA vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical and the appeals were heard together, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We shall firstly deal with the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1429/Chd/2026 for A.Y. 2026-27. 4. At the outset, the Registry pointed out that there is a delay of 26 days in filing the present appeal. In response, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted an application seeking condonation of delay which is placed on record. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the application seeking condonation of delay placed on record. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons explained therein, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 7. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) under section 12AB(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law, contrary to the facts of the case, and is not justified in rejecting the application filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application in Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act without issuing a proper show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing is not justified and is against the principle of nature justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application in Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act without appreciating the fact that the documents required by issuing a single notice during the whole proceedings were already available with the Income Tax Department 4. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, 0R withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at 0R before the time of the hearing. 8. The assessee trust filed an application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) in Form 10AB on 30.09.2025 before the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh. During verification, certain discrepancies were noticed and a show cause notice dated 19.01.2026 was issued. However, despite service of notice and acknowledgment thereof, the assessee failed to furnish any reply or supporting documents, nor sought any adjournment. Consequently, the genuineness of activities and objects of the trust could not be verified.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. AR submitted that the rejection of registration under section 12AB is unjustified and violative of principles of natural justice. It was argued that the assessee had already furnished necessary documents along with Form 10AB, which were available on the portal, and the Ld. CIT(E) erred in treating the assessee as non-compliant merely for not responding to a single notice. The Ld. AR contended that no adequate opportunity of hearing was provided and the rejection was made without examining the charitable objects and genuineness of activities. It was further submitted that at the stage of registration, only prima facie satisfaction is required. The reliance on decisions relating to non-prosecution was stated to be misplaced. The assessee prayed for grant of registration or, alternatively, restoration of the matter for fresh adjudication. 11. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that despite issuance of show cause notice dated 19.01.2026, duly served and acknowledged, the assessee failed to furnish any reply or seek adjournment. It was argued that such non-compliance justified drawing of adverse inference. In absence of necessary details, the genuineness of activities and objects could not be verified, which is essential for grant of registration under section 12AB. The burden of proof lies on the assessee, which remained unfulfilled. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents supporting dismissal for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the DR prayed for upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(E). 12. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the material available on record. We find that the application of the assessee has been rejected primarily for want of supporting documents and non-compliance with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). We further find that no conclusive finding has been recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) that the objects of the trust are non-charitable or that the activities carried out by the assessee are not genuine. The rejection has essentially been made because the requisite details and evidences were not available before the Ld. CIT(E) for examination. 12.1 The provisions of section 12AB require the Ld. CIT(E) to satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the activities of the trust and the compliance of such activities with its stated objects. Such satisfaction can be arrived at only after examination of the relevant material and evidences. In a case where the application has been rejected solely on account of non-compliance and without examining the material