THE ENDOMETRIOSIS FOUNDATION OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 358/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 June 2025Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) to be cryptic and non-speaking. They noted that no concrete deficiency was specified, nor a cogent reason for rejection was provided. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by various assessees against orders from the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting their applications for registration under Section 12AB or approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The assessees contended that the impugned orders were non-speaking and lacked specific reasons or deficiencies identified.

What were the issues?

Whether the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting applications for registration/approval are non-speaking and lack proper reasoning. The direction for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to the assessees.

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 ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Hearing: 04/06/2025

आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad शशशश शशशश शशश, शशशशशशश शशशशश शशश शशशश शशशशशशश शशशशशशश, शशशश शशशशश शश शशशशश श BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. & Assessee Respondent No. Assessment Year 1 & 358/Hyd/2025 The Endometriosis CIT (Exemptions) 2. & foundation of India, Hyderabad. 359/Hyd/2025 Hyderabad PAN:AAETT4524G 3. 360/Hyd/2025 New Hope Association, -do- 2025-26 Hyderabad. PAN:AACAN3143L 4. 361/Hyd/2025 Yuva Jagruthi Foundation, -do- 2025-26 Mahabubnagar. PAN:AAAAY8326Q 5. 362/Hyd/2025 Telangana Water Sports -do- 2025-26 Association, Hyderabad. PAN:AAIAT6977A निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessees by: Ms. DVN Mansa Meenakshi, CA and Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate िधजस्‍व द्वधिध/Revenue by:: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधिीख/Date of hearing: 04/06/2025 घोषणध की तधिीख/Pronouncement: 04/06/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH :

These appeals are filed by different assessees mentioned above, feeling aggrieved by different orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(E)”).

2.

At the outset, we note that all the above captioned appeals pertain to rejection of applications filed by the assessees 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), all the assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

The Learned Authorised Representatives of the assessees 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 assessees, nor has the assessees been afforded proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. ARs 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 assessees to submit any further evidence, if required.

4.

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.

5.

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 assessees, nor has specified any cogent reason for rejection of applications filed by the assessees 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 assessees and allowing the assessees to file any additional documents or evidences in support of their applications.

6.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →