TRENDSET SUMANJALI WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , HYDERABAD

On the other hand, the learned DR for the Revenue has submitted that the order was duly uploaded on the ITBA Portal which amounts to service of the Order to the assessee.

“4. The appellant being aggrieved by the rejection of application vide order dated 16/12/2024 is preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad for redressal of various grievances being raised. The appellant is making this petition for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal due to reasons beyond the appellant's control and knowledge of the proceedings being conducted under 12AB of the Act.

4 ITA.No.935/Hyd./2025 5. The Chartered Accountant who files the return of income of the trust, found on the portal that the appellate order rejecting the application for registration of trust under section 12AB of the Act, dated 16/12/2024 was passed by the Honourable Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad. The appellate order was not received through mail nor was brought to the notice of the members of the Trust. It was only by the Chartered Accountant the members of the trust were informed that the order of rejection was passed by the Honourable Commissioner.

9. It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal takes a lenient and compassionate view and condones the delay of 90 days in filing the Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hears the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.

6 ITA.No.935/Hyd./2025 Accordingly, we condone the delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal.

6. The assessee has raised the following grounds :

1. “The order of rejection for approval under section 12AB of the Act, passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemption], Hyderabad, dated 16/12/2024, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case.

2. Whether the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is justified in mechanically rejecting the application filed by the Appellant for registration of the Appellant Welfare Association under section 12AB of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Whether the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is justified in mechanically rejecting the application filed by the Appellant Trust under section 12AB stating that no substantial charitable activities are being carried out, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The Appellant craves leave of this Honorable Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds urged above, at the time of hearing of the appeal by this Honorable Tribunal.

5. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”

7 ITA.No.935/Hyd./2025 7. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(E) has rejected the application without giving the reasons as to how the activities of the assessee are not charitable in nature. He has pointed-out that in para-3 of the impugned order, the learned CIT(E) has given only one reason that “no substantial activity which are charitable in nature are being carried-out by the assessee”, whereas, the assessee has filed all the requisite details and documents to show that the assessee has carried-out charitable activities, but, the same were not considered by the learned CIT(E) while passing the impugned order. Thus, he has pleaded that the impugned order of the learned CIT(E) be set-aside and the matter be remanded to the record of the learned CIT(E) for re-consideration of the application of the assessee for registration u/sec.12AB of the Act after proper verification and examination of the relevant record in support of the fact that the assessee has carried-out charitable activities.

8 ITA.No.935/Hyd./2025 8. On the other hand, the learned DR for the Revenue has submitted that the learned CIT(E) has given a finding that no substantial activities which are charitable are being carried-out by the assessee. He has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT(E).

3. On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, it is observed that no substantial activities which are charitable in nature are being carried out by the assessee, which is in violation of the provisions of the section 12A of the IT Act, 1961. In view of the above, the present application in form 10AB for registration u/s 12A is herewith rejected.

10. It is apparent from these reasons that a very vague and cryptic reasons are given by the learned CIT(E) for rejection of the application. The learned CIT(E) has not disputed that the assessee has filed the submissions and records, but, there is no whisper about any of the record filed by the assessee and how the activities of the assessee

9 ITA.No.935/Hyd./2025 are not charitable in nature. Therefore, the rejection of the application without considering the relevant record and fact and by a non-speaking order is highly arbitrary and unjustified. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the learned CIT(E) is set- aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(E) for registration of the application of the assessee for registration u/sec.12AB of the Act, after considering relevant record and details to be filed by the assessee as well as giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.11.2025.