ABHIVRUDDHI FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 172/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide a clear notice, failed to consider the submitted documents, and did not grant a personal hearing. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, applied for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejected both applications without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval by the CIT(E) was valid without providing an opportunity of being heard and considering all documents.

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, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos. 173 & 172/Bang/2026 Assessment Year : NA

M/s. Abhivruddhi Foundation, No. 09, 1st Cross, The Commissioner of 1st Main, C Block, Income Tax Swathanthra Nagar, (Exemptions), Srirampuram, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 021. PAN: AAETA2244G APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : None : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, Revenue by CIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 01-04-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25-05-2026

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the rejection orders of the Ld.CIT(E) dated 24/09/2025 in which the Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the applications filed u/s. 12AB of the Act as well as u/s. 80G of the Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust established in the year 2013 and registered u/s. 12AB and got the approval u/s. 80G of the Act. The main object of the assessee trust is relief to the poor, preservation of environment, imparting of education and advancement

Page 2 of 3 ITA Nos. 173 & 172/Bang/2026 of any other objects of general public utility. On 13/03/2025, the assessee filed an application for registration as well as for approval. The assessee also enclosed the requisite documents along with the said applications. The Ld.CIT(E) sought for some documents which were also furnished to him. Thereafter the Ld.CIT(E) without affording an opportunity of being heard, had rejected both the applications.

3.

As against the said rejection orders, the present appeals have been filed by the assessee with a delay of 50 days.

4.

The assessee had also enclosed an application to condone the said delay and in the said application, the assessee had submitted that the notices as well as the orders were sent to the spam folder of the unused email ID and therefore the assessee had no knowledge about the said orders and only when the auditors viewed the portal, the assessee came to know about the orders and therefore the delay has been occurred. Considering the said facts, we are inclined to condone the said delay of 50 days in filing these appeals.

5.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore based on the materials available before us and also based on the statement of facts furnished by the assessee, the appeals are being disposed of by way of this common order.

6.

The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(E) and prayed to dismiss the appeals.

7.

We have heard the arguments of Ld.DR and perused the materials available on record.

8.

As seen from the impugned order, we found that the notice issued by the Ld.CIT(E) is not very clear and also the documents furnished by the assessee were not considered by the Ld.CIT(E). We also noticed that the Ld.CIT(E) had not granted any personal hearing before rejecting the

Page 3 of 3 ITA Nos. 173 & 172/Bang/2026 applications for registration as contemplated u/s. 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. Therefore we are of the view that the assessee had not offered an effective opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E).

9.

We therefore set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(E) and remit these issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to issue a fresh notice and also consider the various documents placed before him and also any other documents to be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the appeals after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 25th May, 2026. /MS /

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, 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 →