2 THE CHILDREN FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. EXEMPTIONS WARD 4, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2060/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 August 2026AY 2027-20286 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of incomplete submission of a questionnaire and missing attachments was an error. The defects were curable, and the Commissioner should have provided an opportunity to rectify them.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Children Foundation, filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) denying approval under sections 12AB(1)(b) and 80G. The denial was based on curable defects, specifically incomplete submission of a questionnaire and missing attachments.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of approval under Section 12AB(1)(b) and 80G based on curable defects without providing an opportunity to rectify them is legally sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB(1)(b),Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES,

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI

Pronounced: 25.08.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, चे�नई पीठ�, चे�नई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI BENCH: C BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2059 & 2060/CHNY/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: - 2 THE CHILDREN FOUNDATION, Exemption Ward-4, No.5, Gandhi Salai Lane, Chennai. Pazhavanthangal, Alandur, Vs. Kanchipura, Chennai – 600061. अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent AAATZ2772J Permanent Account Number of Assessee:

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: None ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Ms.Nayani Swapna - CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 30.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 25.08.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Chennai denying grant of approval u/s.12AB(1)(b) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 both dated 30.03.2026 respectively.

2.

Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both these appeals of the Assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

3.

For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No.2060/CHNY/2026 are stated herein.

ITA No.2060/CHNY/2026 – (12A) : 4. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. Order Bad in Law: The order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] under Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2026, is arbitrary, unjustified, and bad in law, and therefore liable to be quashed.

2.

Rejection on Curable Defects: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law and on facts by rejecting the application for regular registration solely on the ground of incomplete submission of the "PART-E" questionnaire and missing attachments. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that leaving columns blank in an electronic form or failing to attach a single return (Registrar return) are curable, procedural defects that do not alter the substantive charitable character of the Appellant.

3.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in passing the impugned order without affording a specific, adequate, and final opportunity to the Appellant to cure the inadvertent clerical omissions made while filing the replies on the Income Tax portal. Denying registration without issuing a specific show-cause notice highlighting the exact blank fields to be rectified violates the principles of natural justice.

4.

No Adverse Finding on Genuineness: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in concluding that he was not satisfied with the objects and genuineness of the activities of the Trust. It is submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has not placed on record any material or adverse finding to suggest that the Appellant's funds are being misused or that its activities are non-charitable. Rejection based on technical form-filling errors does not equate to a lack of genuineness.

5.

Substance Over Form: The Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate the settled legal jurisprudence that substantive justice cannot be denied on account of technical or procedural lapses. The Appellant genuinely maintains all required books of accounts and statutory compliance records.

6.

Relief Prayed: The Appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned order and direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant regular registration under Section 12AB, or in the alternative, restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to grant the Appellant an opportunity to submit the complete documents.

7.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of the hearing of the appeal.”

4.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite due service of notices for hearing.

5.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a trust formed with the object of rendering charitable activities. The appellant trust filed an application in Form 10AB seeking grant of registration u/s.12AB(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said application was rejected by the Learned CIT(Exemption) merely on the ground that the appellant trust left the columns blank in the Form in Part-E. We are unable to discern from the impugned order that the Learned CIT(E) had granted reasonable and sufficient opportunity to cure the defects. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that interest of the justice would be met, if the matter restored to the file of Learned CIT(Exemption) for de novo disposal of application in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant to cure the defects in filling the columns of the application.

5.

Accordingly, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No.2060/CHNY/2026 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No.2059/CHNY/2026 – 80G : 7. From the perusal of the ld.CIT(E) order, we observe that ld.CIT(E) denied the grant of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act, merely for the reason that the appellant trust was denied for the reason that the appellant-trust left the columns blank in the Form in Part-E while seeking registration u/s.12AB(1)(b) of the Act. In the appeal above in ITA No.2060/CHNY/2026, we directed the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication, therefore, following the parity of the same reasoning, this appeal in ITA No.2059/CHNY/2026 is also remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(Exemption) for denovo disposal of application after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.

9.

To sum up, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 25th Aug, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “सी” ब�च, चे�नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. GANGADHARA Digitally signed by GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.09.01 15:10:48 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 12AB(1)(b)

All 167 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →