INSTITUTE FOR COMMON WEALTH AND AMERICAN STUDIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE,MYSORE vs. CIT(E), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 801/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 June 2026AY 2026-20275 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. It found that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the reasons for the trust's inactivity and had not granted an adequate opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the first rejection order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, applied for registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(E) rejected the application, stating the trust had only received rental income and not conducted charitable activities. The assessee filed appeals after a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration application without considering the reasons for the trust's inactivity and without providing an adequate opportunity for hearing. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri N. Balusamy, JCIT-DR

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

BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos. 800 & 801/Bang/2026 Assessment Years : 2025-26 & 2026-27

M/s. Institute for Common Wealth and American Studies in English Language, The Commissioner Anjali, No. 06, of Income Tax 7th Main Road, (Exemptions), Jayalakshmipuram, Bangalore. Vs. Mysore – 570 012. PAN: AABTI1400K

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N. Balusamy, JCIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 25-05-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19-06-2026

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

These are the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the Ld.CIT(E) dated 20/03/2025 and 18/12/2025 in which the registration sought for u/s. 12AB has been denied.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust established on 02/02/2026 for promoting the various charitable activities.

Page 2 of 5 ITA Nos. 800 & 801/Bang/2026 The trust was administered by the author and after the demise of its author during the year 2020, no activities were carried out by the other trustees. Later on, the other trustees decided to revive the activities of the trust and bank accounts were revived and the return of income for the A.Ys. 2023-24 and 2024-25 were filed as AOP. The assessee had mentioned the status as AOP since there was no registration at that point of time. Subsequently, the trust had filed an application on 02/09/2024 seeking registration u/s. 12A of the Act . The Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the said application on the ground that the assessee trust had not done any charitable activities except receiving the rental income.

3.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed in ITA No. 800/Bang/2026 with a delay of 271 days.

4.

Insofar as the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 20/03/2025, the assessee submitted that the delay has been occurred because of the reason that the assessee had filed a fresh application for registration without challenging the said order before this Tribunal and therefore only after the fresh application has been rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) citing the earlier rejection order, the assessee got legal advice and thereafter the earlier rejection order dated 20/03/2025 was challenged before this Tribunal and therefore submitted that the delay is not intentional and prayed to condone the said delay.

5.

We have considered the reasons stated and also the facts placed before us and we are convinced that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time before this Tribunal and therefore we are inclined to condone the said delay of 271 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 800/Bang/2026 and proceeded to decide both the appeals together since the assessee as well as the issues are common in both the appeals.

6.

As already stated, the assessee trust instead of filing an appeal before this Tribunal had again filed a fresh application seeking for registration on

Page 3 of 5 ITA Nos. 800 & 801/Bang/2026 04/09/2025. The Ld.CIT(E) by relying on the earlier rejection order had dismissed the application on the ground that the assessee could not file a fresh application without challenging the earlier rejection order. As against the said order, the present appeal in ITA No. 801/Bang/2026 was filed by the assessee.

7.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(E) had not considered the various facts and therefore the rejection orders are not in accordance with law. The Ld.AR further submitted that the fact of non- functioning of the trust activities after the demise of the author was not considered and therefore the assessee could not earn any income and on that basis, it could not be concluded that the assessee is not doing any charitable activities. The Ld.AR further submitted that the activities carried out by the assessee is charitable in nature and therefore the registration has to be granted. The Ld.CIT(E) further submitted that at the time of granting the registration, it is necessary only to enquire about the genuineness of the trust and therefore the rejection order is bad in law. The Ld.AR further submitted that the order dated 20/03/2025 is not a well considered one and the assessee was also not able to appear and explain their case before the Ld.CIT(E) and therefore prayed to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

8.

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had not furnished the supporting documents before the Ld.CIT(E) and therefore the order could not be found fault with and prayed to dismiss the appeals.

9.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

10.

We have perused the rejection order dated 20/03/2025 in which the Ld.CIT(E) had extracted the last three financial years income and expenditure and based on the financials as well as the return of income filed by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(E) had arrived a conclusion that the assessee

Page 4 of 5 ITA Nos. 800 & 801/Bang/2026 trust is not doing any activities which are all charitable in nature. From the said order, we find that the Ld.CIT(E) had not considered the various factors leading to the activities not done by the assessee after the demise of the author and also not made any enquiry about the genuineness of the activities carried out by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(E) had observed that the assessee had earned rental income and no other charitable activities were carried out by them without giving a finding that the activities of the assessee trust is not a genuine one. Further, the Ld.CIT(E) had not granted an opportunity of being heard as per section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act before rejecting the said application. It is the case of the assessee that the assessee has slowly started doing charitable activities and therefore decided to restart the activities which were closed after the demise of the author. In such circumstances, the rejection order by the Ld.CIT(E) would definitely stood in the way of the trust including the activities to be carried out by the assessee. We, therefore of the view that the issue has to be revisited by the Ld.CIT(E) in the light of the above observations and therefore we set aside the rejection order dated 20/03/2025 issued by the Ld.CIT(E) and remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for denovo consideration after hearing the assessee.

11.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 800/Bang/2026 was set aside and remitted to the file of the Ld.CIT(E).

12.

Insofar as the appeal in ITA No. 801/Bang/2026 is concerned, we are not adjudicating the issue on merits since the appeal in ITA No. 800/Bang/2026 was already remitted to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to consider the application filed on 02/09/2024 on merits. Therefore, there is no necessity to consider the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 801/Bang/2026 which was filed against the second rejection order. We, therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 801/Bang/2026 as infructuous. Hence, the appeal in ITA No. 801/Bang/2026 is dismissed as infructuous.

Page 5 of 5 ITA Nos. 800 & 801/Bang/2026 13. In the combined result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 800/Bang/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in ITA No. 801/Bang/2026 is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 19th June, 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 →