THE SOCIETY OF NEUROSONOLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BENGALURU

The assessee was registered as a society under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 by Registrar of Societies, Karnataka on 22.04.2014. Assessee was originally granted provisional registration under 12AB and

On being aggrieved by the orders of the learned CIT(E) dt 30.10.2025, assessee is in appeal before us. The only issue emanating from the grounds is with respect to rejection of registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Act based on previous rejection order. Assessee submitted that earlier rejection was merely based on the provisions prohibiting the assessee to receive “sponsorship fees” as expressively prohibited by the Indian Medical Council Regulation, 2002, and also by relying on CBDT circular 5/2012 dt 01.08.2012. The learned AR further submitted that these regulations are applicable to individual doctor and not to the society receiving sponsorship fees. The learned AR further submitted subsequently the assessee filed fresh application in Form 10AB on 03.05.2025. The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the fresh application for registration dt 03.05.2025, based on the previous rejection without considering the current facts and the material on record. He therefore pleaded that the file may be

Per contra, the learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the learned CIT(E) has placed reliance on the earlier rejection order and while rejecting the present application filed by the assessee on 03.05.2025. In our view, each application for registration is required to be considered independently whereas the earlier rejection does not operate as res judicata in income tax proceedings. We find that in the present case, the impugned order does not demonstrate any independent application of mind to the documents filed with the fresh application. The rejection is thus mechanical and based on past conclusions. However, there is no provision in the Act to deny registration under Section 12AB of the Act, if all statutory requirements are later met. Therefore, the rationale provided by the CIT(E) for rejecting the present fresh application based on the earlier denial is not supported by law. Furthermore, the fact that the assessee did not appeal against the original rejection should not prejudice their eligibility for registration, provided the conditions stipulated in the Act are complied with by the assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs O.P.Jindal Global University, I.T.A. No. 190/2011 and 285/2012 dated 2.5.2013, under similar circumstances, has held as under:

It is also noted from the records produced before us, the Society has amended the bye-laws w.e.f. 02.02.2024. The learned CIT(E) ought to have freshly examined the amended bye laws to ascertain the objects and genuineness of the activities of the Trust based on the current material furnished by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find that orders passed by the learned CIT(E) in rejecting the registration u/s 12AB and u/s 80G is not sustainable as it has been passed without examining the present application on merits. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and the matter is restored to the file of learned CIT(E) with a direction to examine the application afresh with reference to the documents and explanations filed by the assessee and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed statistically.

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