LIONS FOUNDATIONS KERALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's application for registration under Section 12A was filed on March 29, 2007, and the ITAT had directed a fresh consideration by order dated July 8, 2008. Despite the lapse of almost twelve years, no action was taken by the respondent. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur v. Society for the Promn. Of Edn., Allahabad and the Kerala High Court's judgment in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin v. TBI Education Trust, the Court held that if an application under Section 12AA is not acted upon within six months, it is deemed to have been allowed. The Court observed that the respondent's laxity for twelve years did not warrant any pardon. Therefore, the Court declared that the petitioner's application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act is allowed, with the registration deemed to have been granted after the expiry of six months from the date of the application, in line with the ratio of the cited judgments. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Lions Foundations Kerala, applied for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 29, 2007. The application was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-Tax on August 2, 2007. The petitioner appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which, by an order dated July 8, 2008, set aside the Commissioner's order and directed him to decide the application afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala in 2020, alleging that despite the ITAT's directions, no action had been taken for twelve years. The petitioner sought a declaration that registration under Section 12A be deemed to have been granted from September 30, 2007, due to the respondent's failure to act within the statutory period.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is deemed to have been granted registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from September 30, 2007, due to the respondent's failure to pass a speaking order within the statutory limitation period as directed by the ITAT. Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to comply with the ITAT's order dated July 8, 2008, which directed a fresh consideration of the Section 12A application. - The petitioner contended that as per Section 12AA(2) of the Income Tax Act, if no decision is taken within six months of the application, it is deemed to have been allowed. - Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur v. Society for the Promn. Of Edn., Allahabad [2016] 382 ITR 6(SC) and a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin v. TBI Education Trust (2019) 306 CTR (Ker) 295. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue did not file a counter-affidavit. - During the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that necessary action would be taken on the directions of the ITAT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 12A,Section 12AA(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
speaking order.
WP(C).No.14974 OF 2020 -5-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that almost twelve years have gone, no action has been taken by the respondent, necessitating the petitioner to approach this Court. On 23.07.2020, this Court admitted the matter and on admission Mr.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 accepted notice and were directed to file counter affidavit.
Today when the case has come up for hearing, the learned counsel on instructions from the respondents submits that the necessary action would be taken on the directions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.
On hearing the submission, this Court asked for an explanation of having not taken the action for almost twelve years and why the deemed exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act has not been granted. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
WP(C).No.14974 OF 2020 -6- relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur and Ors. V. Society for the Promn. Of Edn., Allahabad [2016] 382 ITR 6(SC) and the Division Bench of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin V. TBI Education Trust (2019) 306 CTR (Ker)295 but no satisfactory explanation has come forward nor any counter has been filed. Such a laxity on the part of a very responsible office do not require any pardon or to be accepted in any court proceedings as almost twelve years had gone by, where no action has been taken. In the judgments cited above, the Division Bench of this Court by taking into consideration, the provisions of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, noticed that on the submission of the application, if no decision is taken within the period of six months, the application is deemed to have been allowed. Para 9 of the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin (supra), reads thus: “On a reading of the order passed in (2017) 11 SCC 480, we are not convinced that there was any WP(C).No.14974 OF 2020 -7- concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared in the matter for the Income- Tax Department. As we discern from the order, the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kanpur had filed an appeal from the deemed registration granted under Section 12A for reason solely of an application under Section 12AA of the Act having not been acted upon for six months. The appeal arose from the judgment dated 03.04.2008 of the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad. When the matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court cited, herein above, by the Revenue was passed and we do not see the said decision having been placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Rather than a concession, the learned Additional Solicitor General specifically informed the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the only apprehension of the Department was regarding the date on which the said deemed registration, would be effected; whether it is on the date of application or on the expiry of six months. The Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was disposed of expressing the apprehension to be unfounded, but all the same clarifying that the registration of the of the application under Section 12AA would only take effect from the date of expiry of six months from the date of application. The effect of disposal of a Civil Appeal as has been laid down in WP(C).No.14974 OF 2020 -8- Kunhayammed
V.
State
of Kerala MANU/SC/0432/2000: [(2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)]
hence assumes significance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017 (11) SCC 480; in a Civil Appeal, approved the judgment of the Allahabad High court allowing deemed registration under Section 12AA; but applicable only from the date of expiry of the six month period as mandated in sub-section (2) of Section 12AA. The judgment of the High Court merges in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The opinion as expressed by the Allahabad High Court, regarding deemed registration under Section 12A for reason only of non consideration of an application under Section 12AA within a period of six months from the date of filing, having not been differed from by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal; the declaration by the High Court assumes the authority of a precedent by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the principles of doctrine of merger. Despite the compelling persuasion of the learned Senior Counsel to interpret the provisions as has been interpreted by the Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad we find ourselves, incapacitated so to do and obligated to respectfully follow (2017) 11 SCC 480.”
Similar is the view of the Supreme Court, in WP(C).No.14974 OF 2020 -9- Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur (supra). The relevant portion reads thus:
“3. The short issue is with regard to the deemed registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered under the provision.
The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Appellants, has raised an apprehension that in the case of the Respondent, since the date of application was of 24.02.2003, at the worst, the same would operate only after six months from the date of the application.
We see no basis for such an apprehension since that is the only logical sense in which the judgment could be understood. Therefore, in order to disabuse any apprehension, we make it clear that the registration of the application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act in the case of the Respondent shall take effect from 24.08.2003. 6. Subject to the above clarification and leaving all other questions of law open, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.”
It is a matter of record that vide order dated
WP(C).No.14974 OF 2020 -10- 08.07.2008, learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner resulting into revival of the application for seeking exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act dated 28.03.2007 submitted on 29.03.2007 and almost twelve years have passed, it is deemed to have been granted registration after the expiry of six months, in view of the ratio culled out in the judgments referred to above. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner for registration of the Society under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act is allowed. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. AMIT RAWAL vv JUDGE
WP(C).No.14974 OF 2020 -11-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026