ALMOND HOUSE FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had not properly appreciated the documents submitted by the assessee and had not given the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed all necessary documents, including details of charitable activities and audited financial statements. However, the Ld. CIT(E)'s order did not point out any specific deficiency in the documents or the activities carried out. The Tribunal considered the Ld. CIT(E)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking reasoning, which is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to provide an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Almond House Foundation, filed appeals against two separate orders dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (Ld. CIT(E)). These orders rejected the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the Ld. CIT(E)'s finding that the assessee had not carried out substantial charitable activities. The assessee contended that it had complied with all requirements and provided complete documentation, including evidence of charitable activities and audited financial statements. The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(E)'s orders were cryptic, non-speaking, and arbitrary, lacking specific reasons for rejecting the applications. The assessee requested the matter be remanded for fresh consideration with an opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act, on the grounds that no substantial charitable activities were being carried out, under the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G of the Act, on the grounds that no substantial charitable activities were being carried out, under the facts and circumstances of the case? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee had fully complied with all requirements and provided complete details and documentary evidence of its charitable activities, audited financial statements, and application of funds towards charitable purposes. - The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing specific reasons why the activities were not considered charitable. - The order of rejection was cryptic, non-speaking, and arbitrary, failing to point out any specific deficiency in the documents or activities. - The assessee prayed for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and argued that the applications were rightly rejected as the assessee failed to demonstrate substantial charitable activities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: Both these appeals are filed by Almond House Foundation, Kukatpally, Hyderabad (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(E)”), rejecting registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and rejecting approval u/s.80G of the Act vide orders both dated 22.11.2024. Since both the appeals are on the same issue, they are heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in :
“ 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 22/11/2024, 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 Trust 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 Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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.”
3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in :
“1. The order of rejection for approval under section 80G of the Act, passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemption], Hyderabad, dated 22/11/2024, 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, requires to be quashed.
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 Trust under section 80G of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case.
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.
The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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.”
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had applied for 4. registration u/s.12AB of the Act and for approval u/s.80G of the Act separately by filing separate Form no.10AB before the Ld. CIT(E). However, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected both the applications stating that the assessee had not carried out substantial activities of charitable nature.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee had fully complied with all the requirements and had provided complete details of its charitable activities to the Ld. CIT(E) including documentary evidences supporting its charitable nature, audited financial statements reflecting the application of funds towards charitable purposes, etc. However, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing any specific reason as to why the activities undertaken were not considered as charitable. The order is cryptic, non-speaking and arbitrary and the Ld. CIT(E) failed to point out any specific deficiency in the documents filed or the activities carried out by the assessee. Finally, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench for setting aside the impugned order for remanding the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) supported the order of Ld. CIT(E) and argued that the Ld. CIT(E) rightly rejected the applications as the assessee failed to demonstrate substantial charitable activities. Finally, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench to reject the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have gone through the paper book filed by the assessee and found that the assessee has filed all the documents in compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) including the details of charitable activities conducted by the assessee, audited financial statements reflecting the application of funds, etc. We have also gone through the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and found that the Ld. CIT(E) has not pointed out any specific deficiency neither in the documents filed by the assessee nor in the activity carried out by the assessee. We also found that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is non-speaking and lacks any reasoning. In our considered opinion, the rejection of applications for registration u/s.12AB of the Act and approval u/s.80G of the Act without assigning any specific reason is arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(E) has not properly appreciated the documents submitted by the assessee and has not given the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the orders of Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(E) should provide an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of 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 Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026