GLOBAL UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.776 & 777/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2026-27) Global University Vs. CIT(E) Foundation, HYDERABAD Hyderabad PAN:AAICG0020F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Suvibha Nolka राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, CIT (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 15/10/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/10/2026 ORDER Per Madhusudhan Sawdia, A.M.: These two appeals filed by the Global University Foundation (“the assessee”) arise out of separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [“Ld. CIT(E)”] in Form No. 10AD, both dated 12.01.2026, rejecting the applications for registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Since the circumstances leading to the rejection and the submissions in both appeals are common, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed applications separately in Form No. 10AB, seeking registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) issued notices seeking compliance from the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to the notices, and the applications of the assessee were rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide the impugned orders. 3. Aggrieved by the rejection orders, the assessee has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee could not become aware of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and, consequently, could not respond to them. Further, inviting our attention to the applications filed in Form No. 10AB, she submitted that certain documents had already been furnished along with the applications, but the Ld. CIT(E) had not considered those documents while rejecting the applications. She requested that, in the interest of justice, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to furnish its submissions and supporting documentary evidence before the Ld. CIT(E), and that the applications be restored to his file for consideration on merits. 4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR") submitted that he had no objection to restoring the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR explained that the assessee could not respond to the notices as it was unaware of their issuance. She further submitted that the documents furnished along with the applications had not been considered and requested one more opportunity to substantiate the claims for registration and approval. The Ld. DR has not objected to restoring the matters for fresh consideration. We find that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee was required to pursue its applications diligently and furnish the information called for. Nevertheless, we consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to afford the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claims. Such an opportunity would enable the applications to be examined on merits after considering the relevant material. Accordingly, we set aside both the impugned orders and restore the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- in each appeal, aggregating to Rs. 2,000/-, by the assessee to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall furnish proof of such payment before the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) shall provide the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and of furnishing its submissions and supporting documentary evidence. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). We express no opinion on the merits of the claims for registration and approval.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 16th October, 2026. Vinodan/sps

Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Global University Foundation, Plot No.303F, Road No.25, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500033 2 CIT (Exemption)) Aayakar Bhavan, Opp: LB Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500004- Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File

By Order Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA DN: cn=TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI LAKSHMI NARAYANA, c=IN, o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ou=INCOME TAX NARAYANA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH Date: 2026.10.16 15:34:35 +05'30'

Page 4 of 4