KFORD (KASHMIR FOUNDATION FOR ORGANIZATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ),SRINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 1070/ASR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 September 20265 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the explanation provided by the assessee in respect of the delay to be appropriate. Regarding the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii), the Tribunal held that the rejection was principally for non-compliance and procedural deficiencies. Since the assessee undertook to furnish all requisite documents and details, the Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the matter deserved to be examined afresh by the CIT(E). Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the application for registration was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration and adjudication in accordance with law. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee's eligibility for registration. Consequently, the second appeal concerning the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G(5) also met the same fate, as it was consequential to the rejection of the Section 12AB registration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, KFord (Kashmir Foundation For Organization Research and Development), filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the rejection of its applications for registration under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were filed belatedly by 96 and 99 days. The assessee's application for registration was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] due to non-compliance with notices and failure to submit required details regarding its charitable objects and genuineness of activities. The rejection of the 80G approval was consequential to the rejection of the 12AB registration. The assessee attributed the non-compliance to a medical emergency concerning the mother of its sole administrative functionary.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should condone the delay in filing the appeals (Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the application for registration under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rightly rejected by the CIT(E) on grounds of procedural deficiencies and non-furnishing of documents. 3. Whether the application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rightly rejected as consequential to the rejection of the Section 12AB registration. Assessee's contentions: The delay in filing the appeals was due to an unavoidable medical emergency. The rejection of the registration was based on procedural deficiencies, not on merits regarding charitable objects or genuineness of activities. The assessee is willing to furnish all required documents and seeks one more opportunity for consideration on merits. The assessee relied on its prior approval under Section 12A since 2009 without any change in objects or activities. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue regarding the merits of the case, other than the fact that the CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SH. GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

Hearing: 30.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

Per: GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM:

The moot ground raised by the assessee in the first appeal is in respect of rejection of its application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii). The second appeal is in respect of rejection of application seeking approval u/s 80G(5) which is consequential to rejection of registration u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

I.T.A. No.1070 and 1077/Asr/2026 KFord (Kashmir Foundation For Organization Research) 2 Assessment Year: N/A 2. It is pointed out that the appeals are filed belatedly with 96 and 99 days. Assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →