KAYDEE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

Shri Abhishek Bansal, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT- DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

Both the appeals of the assessee are delayed by 25 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating sufficient reasons for the delay. Considering the contents of the affidavits filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we condone the said delays in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The appeals of the assessee are being disposed off on merits.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the trust was created by a trust deed dated 23.08.2016. The assessee had applied for registration u/s 12A in Form 10AB by applying provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act and had been granted the said registration on 31.12.2021. It was the submission that the assessee applied for renewal of the registration on 27.09.2025 under the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for registration on the ground that the original registration u/s 12A itself was invalid in so far as the assessee was not entitled the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that he has no objection if the issues are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for adjudication on merits in respect of the registration u/s 12A considering the application filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(E) shows that the ld. CIT(E) has cancelled the earlier registration and denied the extension of the registration in a single order. These are two separate orders that are required to be passed. Further, it is also noticed that the original registration granted u/s 12A under the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act has been done after the expiry of the period for which the registration has been granted. A registration once granted, if it is to be cancelled should be done during the life of such registration. Further, it is admitted fact that the assessee has made mistake in referring wrong section in regard to section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act, but the fact that the ld. CIT(E) then had granted the assessee the registration, it should be deemed that the ld. CIT(E) has condoned the defect and proceeded for registration. The impugned ld. CIT(E) cannot proceed to override the order which has already passed without giving any valid reasons. This being so, the order of the ld. CIT(E) treating the original registration granted to the assessee u/s 12A of the Act as void ab initio stands quashed and stands set aside. Once an order of the ld. CIT(E)

ITA No.2298/Kol/2026- As we have restored the issue of registration u/s 12A to the ld. CIT(E) for re-adjudication, the issues in this appeal in respect of recognition u/s 80G is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for re-adjudication after considering the prayer for renewal of registration u/s 12A and after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

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

CIT(DR),