PRASADAM FOUNDATION,KADAPA vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s orders to be cryptic and non-speaking, lacking specific reasons or identified deficiencies. It set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given due opportunity of hearing and permission to submit additional evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Prasadam Foundation, filed two appeals against the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection of their applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2025-26. The assessee contended that the rejection orders were non-speaking and passed without a proper opportunity of hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the Ld. CIT(E) could reject applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G without providing specific reasons or a proper opportunity of hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH : These two appeals are filed by M/s. Prasadam Foundation (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(E)”) dated 07.12.2024 & 12.12.2024 respectively, for the A.Y. 2025-26.
At the outset, we note that both the appeals pertain to rejection of applications filed by the assessee in Form no.10AB for registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) or for approval u/s.80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) passed the impugned orders rejecting the said applications. Against the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) of the assessee submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) are non- speaking orders. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(E) has not pointed out any specific deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessee, nor has the assessee been afforded proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR prayed before the bench that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld.
CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, after providing due opportunity to the assessee to submit any further evidence, if required.
Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not make any objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. On perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E), we found that the orders are cryptic and non-speaking in nature. The Ld. CIT(E) has not specified any concrete deficiency in the documents or evidences submitted by the assessee, nor has specified any cogent reason for rejection of applications filed by the assessee for registration u/s.12AB of the Act or for approval u/s.80G of the Act.
5.1 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the cases, we are of the considered view that, justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to adjudicate the applications afresh, after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allowing the assessee to file any additional documents or evidences in support of their applications.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026