R E NAINA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1127/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 October 2026AY 2026-278 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to furnish the requested information and documents, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that reasons beyond their control prevented compliance. The Tribunal reasoned that the applications needed to be considered based on relevant information and documents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The orders of the CIT(E) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with a clear direction for the assessee to furnish all required information and documents. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the applications afresh after hearing the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, R E Naina Educational Trust, filed applications in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2026-27. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], Hyderabad, issued notices calling for specific information and documents. The assessee failed to comply with these notices, even after being granted an additional opportunity. Consequently, the CIT(E) rejected both applications. The assessee appealed these rejections to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad 'B' Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without providing sufficient opportunity, turning on the procedural fairness of the rejection. 2. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's applications for approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without providing sufficient opportunity, turning on the procedural fairness of the rejection. Assessee's contentions: The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications. It was submitted that due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, the required information and documents could not be furnished. The assessee requested one more opportunity to submit the details and sought restoration of the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Revenue's contentions: The learned CIT-DR supported the orders of the CIT(E), stating that the assessee was given opportunities to furnish the required information and documents but failed to comply. Therefore, the rejection of the applications for want of requisite information and documents was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad

आदेश / ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

The above two appeals are filed by the assessee-trust against the orders dated 12.01.2026 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, rejecting the applications filed by the assessee-trust in Form No.10AB seeking registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"]. Since common issues are involved in both these appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a charitable trust and filed an e-application in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/sec.12AB of the Act and another application in Form No.10AB seeking approval u/sec.80G of the Act. During the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E), notices were issued to the assessee calling for a detailed reply and specific information in respect of the applications filed in

3 ITA Nos.1127 and 1128/Hyd/2026

Form No.10AB. However, there was no compliance to the said notices and the assessee did not furnish the information and mandatory documents called for. The Ld. CIT(E) thereafter accorded one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required information and informed the assessee that, in case of failure to furnish the information, the applications would be rejected. Since there was no compliance to the notices and the mandatory information and documents were not furnished, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/sec.12AB of the Act as well as the application seeking approval u/sec.80G of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is now in appeals before the Tribunal.

4.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate, referring to the orders of the Ld. CIT(E), submitted that, the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/sec.12AB and approval u/sec.80G of the Act,

4 ITA Nos.1127 and 1128/Hyd/2026

without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish the relevant information and documents called for. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could not furnish the information and documents sought by the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to furnish the relevant information and documents in support of the applications filed in Form No.10AB. Accordingly, she submitted that the matters may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

5.

The Ld. CIT-DR, Shri Waseem UR Rehman, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the Ld. CIT(E), submitted that, the assessee was provided opportunities to furnish the required information and documents in respect of the applications filed in Form No.10AB. However, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and did not furnish the mandatory information and documents called for. Therefore, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) was

5 ITA Nos.1127 and 1128/Hyd/2026

justified in rejecting the application filed by the assessee seeking registration u/sec.12AB of the Act, for non- compliance and the application seeking approval u/sec.80G of the Act for want of the requisite information and documents. Accordingly, he submitted that the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) should be upheld.

6.

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the assessee has filed an e-application in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/sec.12AB of the Act and another application in Form No.10AB seeking approval u/sec.80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) issued notices to the assessee calling for a detailed reply and specific information in respect of the applications filed in Form No.10AB. However, there was no compliance to the said notices and the assessee had not furnished the information and mandatory documents called for. The Ld. CIT(E) thereafter accorded one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required information and

6 ITA Nos.1127 and 1128/Hyd/2026

informed the assessee that, in case of failure to furnish the information, the applications would be rejected. Since there was no compliance to the notices and the mandatory information and documents were not furnished, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee seeking registration u/sec.12AB of the Act. Similarly, the application filed by the assessee seeking approval u/sec.80G of the Act was rejected for non-submission of the mandatory information and documents required to verify the genuineness of the activities of the trust and the expenditure towards its objectives.

7.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(E) for rejecting the applications filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/sec.12AB and approval u/sec.80G of the Act in light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee, and we ourselves do not subscribe to the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(E) for the simple reason that the applications have been rejected without providing sufficient opportunity to the

7 ITA Nos.1127 and 1128/Hyd/2026

assessee to furnish the relevant information and documents in support of its applications. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, for the reasons stated, the assessee could not furnish the information and documents called for by the Ld. CIT(E) and requested for one more opportunity to furnish the relevant details. Since the applications filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB are required to be considered on the basis of the relevant information and documents furnished by the assessee, in our considered view, one more opportunity needs to be given to the assessee to furnish the relevant information and documents in support of its applications filed in Form No.10AB. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall furnish all the relevant information and documents as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(E) in support of its applications filed in Form No.10AB seeking registration

8 ITA Nos.1127 and 1128/Hyd/2026

u/sec.12AB and approval u/sec.80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) shall consider the same and decide the applications afresh in accordance with law.

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 14th October, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (मंजूनाथ जी) (RAVISH SOOD) (MANJUNATHA G.) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- Hyderabad, dated 14.10.2026. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धारिती/The Assessee : R E NAINA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, C/O SEKHAR AND SURESH, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 133/4, 1ST FLOOR, NEXT TO BIBLE HOUSE, R P ROAD, SECUNDERABAD-500003, TELANGANA 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1(3), 2ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBHAG, HYDERABAD-500001, TELANGANA 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad. विभागीयप्रतिनिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 4. 5. गार्डफ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER TIRUPATI YAMINI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI NAGA Senior Private Secretary, Date: 2026.10.22 12:08:09 MALLESWARI ITAT, Hyderabad. +05'30'

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →