Jodhpur ITAT: U/s 12AB/80G Registration Cannot Be Mechanically Rejected for Curable Defects

Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha Vs CIT(E) (ITAT Jodhpur)

Jodhpur ITAT: 12AB/80G Registration Cannot Be Rejected Mechanically for Curable Defects – Remand Must Be Confined to Actual Grounds of Rejection

In a significant consolidated order involving numerous charitable trusts/institutions, the Jodhpur ITAT dealt with rejection of registration under Sections 12A/12AB and, in some cases, consequential rejection of approval under Section 80G. The Tribunal classified the cases into six categories depending upon whether rejection arose from absence of Rajasthan Public Trust registration, genuineness concerns, procedural defects, non-compliance, or consequential 80G rejection.

The Tribunal held that where registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was subsequently obtained, this subsequent development goes to the very foundation of the rejection. The CIT(E) must verify the certificate and, if it is valid and no other statutory impediment survives, registration under Section 12AB should be granted. Importantly, such restoration cannot become an excuse for an unrestricted de novo enquiry on new grounds.

Where the assessee had already applied for Rajasthan Public Trust registration and the application was pending, the ITAT held that the Section 12AB proceedings should be preserved and the assessee permitted to produce the certificate when issued. The assessee need not restart the entire 12AB registration process merely because another statutory authority had not yet issued the certificate.

On genuineness of activities, the Tribunal drew an important distinction between a positive finding that activities are non-genuine and a mere finding that the assessee “failed to establish” genuineness because adequate documents were not produced. Absence of sufficient evidence cannot automatically be converted into an affirmative finding of non-genuineness. The CIT(E) must examine accounts, actual charitable activities and supporting evidence and give the assessee an opportunity to rebut adverse material.

For defective/incomplete Form 10AB, selection of an incorrect clause or similar curable procedural defects, the Tribunal directed that legally permissible rectification should be allowed and thereafter the application decided on substantive merits. However, substantive requirements such as limitation and statutory eligibility remain unaffected.

Similarly, where rejection arose from non-compliance with notices or failure to furnish documents, the assessee should receive one final effective opportunity to furnish the complete material. If there is further unjustified default, the CIT(E) may decide the matter on the material available.

As regards Section 80G, where approval was rejected merely or substantially because Section 12AB registration was absent/rejected, the consequential rejection was also set aside. However, grant of 12AB registration does not automatically confer 80G approval; the CIT(E) must independently examine the conditions peculiar to Section 80G, while avoiding needless duplication of matters already examined under Section 12AB.

Crucially, the ITAT emphasised that the remand is not a wholesale fresh enquiry. The scope of restored proceedings must have a rational nexus with the specific reason(s) recorded by the CIT(E) for rejection. Where multiple grounds existed, the relevant directions operate cumulatively, but the CIT(E) cannot use remand to enlarge the enquiry into matters unrelated to the original rejection.

The Tribunal also condoned delays in filing several appeals, holding that satisfactorily explained procedural delay should not deprive charitable institutions of adjudication on merits.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JODHPUR

The captioned appeals have been preferred by different assessee-trusts/institutions against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), whereby their applications seeking registration under section 12A/12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, in certain cases, approval under section 80G have been rejected. Though the impugned orders have been passed separately and the factual position obtaining in each case is not entirely identical, the reasons which have prevailed with the Ld. CIT(E) substantially overlap and fall within a few identifiable categories. The issues involved are, therefore, interconnected and the arguments addressed before us also proceeded broadly on common lines. Accordingly, all these appeals were heard together and, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetitive adjudication of substantially similar issues, are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that in some of the appeals there is delay in approaching the Tribunal. The extent of delay differs from case to case and the respective assessees have furnished explanations seeking condonation thereof. Broadly, it has been explained that some of the institutions are functioning in rural areas and their office-bearers are not sufficiently conversant with electronic modes of communication and statutory compliances; in certain cases, notices and communications continued to be transmitted to the e-mail address of the erstwhile tax consultant; whereas in others, the delay arose on account of dependence upon professional advisers or persons entrusted with attending to the income-tax proceedings. It has also been submitted that there was no intention on the part of any of these institutions to abandon the statutory remedy and that, immediately upon becoming aware of the rejection of their applications and obtaining appropriate professional advice, necessary steps were taken for filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR, while relying upon the respective impugned orders, did not seriously controvert these factual explanations and left the issue of condonation to the discretion of the Bench.

3. We have considered the explanations furnished by the respective assessees for the delay in filing the appeals. Having regard to the reasons stated above and the circumstances in which these institutions are functioning, we find that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any lack of bona fides on their part. The explanations furnished are reasonable and constitute sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed period. In our view, where the delay stands satisfactorily explained, the assessees should not be deprived of an adjudication on merits merely on account of such procedural lapse. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in the respective appeals, as indicated in the table hereinafter, is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

Appeal-wise classification

4. Before proceeding to examine the issues on merits, it would be apposite to notice the precise reason or reasons which prevailed with the Ld. CIT(E) in the respective appeals. Although the impugned orders have been passed separately, the grounds on which registration under section 12AB and/or approval under section 80G has been declined broadly fall within certain identifiable categories. For the sake of ready reference and to facilitate a structured consideration of the issues, the appeals may be classified in the following manner:

5. The aforesaid classification is not merely for convenience of presentation. The nature and width of the enquiry which survives in these cases is materially different. In one set, the very deficiency which constituted the basis of rejection has subsequently ceased to exist; in another, the process for curing that deficiency has already been initiated but awaits action by another statutory authority; in a third, an observation concerning genuineness has been recorded without any elaborate factual examination; while in some cases the impediment is essentially procedural or arises from inadequate compliance. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to subject every appeal to an identical and unrestricted remand. The scope of further examination must necessarily bear a rational nexus with the precise reason which formed the foundation of the respective impugned order. We proceed to examine the categories accordingly.

Category I – Registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act subsequently obtained

6. We first take up those appeals where the Ld. CIT(E) declined registration under section 12AB principally on the ground that the concerned assessee was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, but where the requisite registration has since been granted by the competent authority and the certificate is now stated to be available for verification. Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the respective assessees submitted that the very deficiency which weighed with the Ld. CIT(E) no longer subsists and that the registration certificates can now be produced before him. It has further been pointed out that, in the cases falling within this category, the impugned orders do not record any separate substantive adverse finding regarding the charitable character of the objects or the genuineness of the activities and that the rejection essentially rests upon absence of registration under the State enactment at the relevant point of time.

7. In our view, the subsequent grant of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act cannot be regarded as an inconsequential development. What weighed with the Ld. CIT(E) in these cases was not any positive material demonstrating that the objects of the concerned trust were non-charitable or that its activities were not genuine, but the absence, at the relevant point of time, of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Once that very registration has subsequently been granted by the competent statutory authority, the factual substratum on which the rejection rested has materially altered. The subsequent certificate goes directly to the foundation of the reason assigned in the impugned order and, therefore, deserves to be taken into consideration before the statutory claim is finally foreclosed. To perpetuate the rejection merely because the certificate was not available on the date on which the Ld. CIT(E) decided the application, notwithstanding that the deficiency has since ceased to exist, would place form above the substance of the enquiry which the registration proceedings are intended to undertake.

8. At the same time, the certificate constitutes subsequent material which has not undergone verification by the Ld. CIT(E), and it would not be appropriate for us to undertake such factual verification for the first time in appellate proceedings. It is for this reason, and not by way of a routine remand, that these applications require restoration. The Ld. CIT(E) shall verify the authenticity, validity and applicability of the certificate subsequently obtained and, where the absence of such registration constituted the sole or principal ground of rejection and no other substantive adverse finding concerning the objects or genuineness of activities has been recorded in the impugned order, the restored proceedings shall remain confined to such verification and the statutory requirements necessarily incidental thereto. If the certificate is found to be valid and applicable and no other statutory impediment noticed in the impugned order survives, registration under section 12AB shall be granted in accordance with law. The restoration should not furnish an occasion for travelling beyond the reasons which formed the basis of rejection and embarking upon an unrestricted enquiry on altogether new grounds.

Category II – Registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act under process

CATEGORY-II

9. The next category comprises those assessees who had already applied for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, but whose applications are stated to be presently pending before the competent authority. Their position stands on a somewhat different footing from the preceding category because the deficiency has not yet actually ceased to exist; nevertheless, the process for curing it has already been set in motion. The assessee has done what lies within its domain by making the requisite application, while the consideration and ultimate issuance of the certificate thereafter rests with another statutory authority. The time which such authority may take in disposing of the application is ordinarily not a matter which the assessee can command or accelerate at will.

10. In such circumstances, requiring an assessee to recommence the entire exercise under section 12AB merely because the authority administering the Rajasthan Public Trust Act had not issued the certificate by the time the Ld. CIT(E) disposed of its application would place the assessee in a recurring procedural cycle for a circumstance which is not entirely within its control. The distinction from the preceding category is that the deficiency here awaits cure; nevertheless, the statutory process for its cure has already been invoked. The appropriate course, therefore, is to preserve the application and afford the assessee reasonable opportunity to bring the certificate on record upon its issuance rather than compel initiation of the registration proceedings afresh.

11. Accordingly, the concerned assessee shall place before the Ld. CIT(E) the present status of its application under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and shall produce the registration certificate as and when the same is issued. The Ld. CIT(E) may appropriately regulate the restored proceedings having regard to the status of such application. Upon production of the certificate, its authenticity, validity and applicability shall be verified and the application under section 12AB shall thereafter be carried to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. Where the absence of the State registration was the only substantive impediment noticed in the impugned order and the certificate is ultimately found to be in order, registration shall be granted subject to fulfillment of the statutory requirements relevant to such verification.

Category III – Cases involving an observation regarding genuineness of activities

CATEGORY-III

12. We now advert to a somewhat distinct category where, apart from the issue relating to registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act or some other deficiency, the Ld. CIT(E) has also observed that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of its activities. On examining the tenor of the impugned orders falling within this category, we find that such observation has generally been recorded in a summary manner, substantially because adequate material was not available before the Ld. CIT(E) or complete compliance was not made with the notices issued during the proceedings. Significantly, no particular activity appears to have been identified as sham, fictitious or colourable, nor is there any elaborate reference to specific material demonstrating that the activities actually carried on were contrary to the objects professed by the respective institutions. The conclusion, in substance, appears to flow from an insufficiency of material rather than from any affirmative material establishing non-genuineness.

13. There is, in our considered view, a qualitative distinction between a positive finding that the activities of an institution are not genuine and an observation that their genuineness has not been established. The former presupposes an examination of the relevant facts and material leading to an affirmative conclusion that the activities claimed are fictitious, colourable, unrelated to the stated objects or otherwise lacking in genuineness; the latter may merely be the consequence of inadequate evidence or incomplete compliance. The two situations cannot be placed on the same pedestal. Where the impugned order does not identify any particular activity as non-genuine and does not refer to any cogent adverse material in support of such conclusion, but the observation has followed substantially from insufficiency of documents, it would be difficult to treat the same as a concluded factual finding which forecloses further examination.

14. This, however, does not mean that genuineness of activities is to be presumed merely because the institution is constituted as a trust or professes charitable objects. The enquiry into genuineness is a substantive facet of the registration proceedings and the Ld. CIT(E) is entitled, and indeed required, to examine whether the activities stated to have been undertaken are genuine, whether they bear a real and discernible nexus with the objects for which the institution has been constituted and whether the statutory conditions governing registration stand fulfilled. Such satisfaction should, however, emerge from an examination of the primary material and the explanation of the assessee. A conclusion affecting the statutory entitlement of an institution ought to rest upon an adequate factual foundation and not merely upon the absence of documents which prevented the enquiry itself from being meaningfully undertaken.

15. The applications falling within this category, therefore, require a fuller factual examination. The concerned assessees shall be permitted to furnish their trust deeds or other constitutional documents, accounts, details of charitable programmes and activities actually undertaken, supporting evidence and such other primary material as may reasonably be required. Where registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act has subsequently been obtained, the certificate shall also be produced and examined; where the application remains pending, the directions governing Category II shall correspondingly apply. The Ld. CIT(E) shall thereafter independently examine the genuineness of the activities and their nexus with the stated objects. If any specific material is proposed to be used for drawing an adverse inference, the same shall first be confronted to the assessee and an effective opportunity of explanation and rebuttal shall be afforded. The restoration in this category neither proceeds upon an assumption that the activities are genuine nor amounts to an endorsement of the cursory adverse observation appearing in the impugned order. The question is deliberately left open for a meaningful determination on the basis of the complete primary record.

Category IV – Incomplete Form No. 10AB, incorrect clause and other curable procedural defects

CATEGORY-IV

16. Another set of appeals concerns applications which have been rejected because Form No. 10AB was incomplete, the application was filed under an incorrect clause or there existed some analogous defect in the prescribed application. In dealing with such cases, a distinction necessarily has to be maintained between a defect which goes to the substantive eligibility of an applicant and one which inheres merely in the manner in which the statutory application has been presented. The former cannot be cured by treating it as a procedural irregularity; the latter may, depending upon the statutory framework, admit of rectification. Thus, an incomplete form, an inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause or absence of a document capable of being subsequently furnished ought not ordinarily to foreclose examination of the substantive claim if the defect is legally capable of being cured.

17. The concerned assessees shall, therefore, be afforded an effective opportunity to furnish the appropriate Form No. 10AB, rectify the defect in the application and place the supporting documents on record, insofar as such rectification is permissible under the applicable statutory provisions. Upon such compliance, the Ld. CIT(E) shall examine the application on its substantive merits and determine the eligibility of the assessee in accordance with law. This direction does not obliterate or dilute any substantive condition governing registration, nor can it be understood as permitting an otherwise time-barred or legally untenable application to be validated merely by characterizing the defect as procedural. The purpose of the opportunity is only to ensure that a genuinely curable defect in the manner of presentation does not, by itself, eclipse adjudication of a claim which is otherwise capable of consideration under the statute.

Category V – Non-compliance with notices or inadequate supporting material

18. There remains another class of appeals where rejection has substantially emanated from non-compliance with notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E), failure to furnish the documents called for or inability to place adequate material within the time available. The explanations offered before us include lack of proper professional assistance, communications having continued to be transmitted to an erstwhile consultant and practical difficulties faced by the office-bearers of some institutions in attending to electronic proceedings. These circumstances have already been noticed while considering the issue of condonation. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the fact that the statutory enquiry itself could not be meaningfully completed for want of the relevant material, we are of the view that one effective opportunity should be afforded to such assessees to place their complete case before the prescribed authority. An application concerning charitable registration ought, as far as reasonably possible, to be decided upon the relevant primary material rather than remain concluded solely because the material necessary for undertaking that enquiry was not adequately produced in the first instance.

19. The opportunity now being afforded, however, carries a corresponding obligation upon the assessee. It cannot be treated as an avenue for repeated default, avoidable adjournments or indefinite prolongation of the statutory proceedings. The respective assessees shall extend due cooperation, respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and furnish the prescribed forms, constitutional documents, accounts, details of activities, registration certificates and such other information as may reasonably be called for within the time allowed. Upon such compliance, the Ld. CIT(E) shall examine the material and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. If, despite the opportunity now afforded, an assessee fails without reasonable cause to comply with the legitimate requirements of the proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the material available before him.

Category VI – Connected applications seeking approval under section 80G

20. We now deal with the connected appeals relating to approval under section 80G. In several cases, such approval has been declined substantially or consequentially because registration under section 12AB had either not been granted or the application seeking such registration itself stood rejected. Once the underlying order relating to section 12AB is being set aside and the application is required to be considered in terms of the category-specific findings recorded hereinabove, the corresponding rejection under section 80G, where founded substantially upon the absence of such registration, cannot independently survive on that premise. The particular impediment which weighed with the Ld. CIT(E) would necessarily have to be reconsidered in the light of the ultimate determination of the application under section 12AB. Consequently, such applications under section 80G also require to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) so that they may be considered after, or alongside, the corresponding proceedings under section 12AB, as the circumstances of the respective cases may warrant.

21. At the same time, registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G, though interconnected in the context of these appeals, operate in their respective statutory fields. Grant of registration under section 12AB would remove the particular impediment arising from its absence, but it would not dispense with examination of the conditions specifically governing approval under section 80G. The Ld. CIT(E) shall, therefore, independently satisfy himself regarding fulfilment of the requirements germane to section 80G and, upon finding the same fulfilled, grant approval in accordance with law. Equally, the restored proceedings under section 80G should not become an occasion for mechanical duplication of an enquiry which has already been duly undertaken while considering registration under section 12AB. To the extent that the nature of the objects, genuineness of activities or other common facets have already undergone examination and stand determined in the proceedings under section 12AB, unnecessary repetition of the same exercise may be avoided, while the requirements peculiar to section 80G shall receive independent consideration.

Final Decision and Operative Directions

22. In the backdrop of our discussion hereinabove, and in order that there remains no ambiguity either as to the scope of the restored proceedings or the manner in which the respective applications are to be dealt with, we consider it appropriate to crystallise our conclusions and operative directions as under:

(i) Cases where registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 has subsequently been obtained: The respective assessees shall produce before the Ld. CIT(E) the certificates of registration subsequently issued by the competent authority under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The Ld. CIT(E) shall verify the authenticity, validity and applicability of such certificates. Where absence of such registration constituted the sole or principal ground for rejection and the impugned order does not contain any separate substantive adverse finding concerning the charitable nature of the objects or genuineness of the activities, the enquiry on restoration shall remain confined to verification of the certificate and such statutory requirements as are necessarily incidental thereto. If, upon verification, the certificate is found to be valid and applicable and no other statutory impediment noticed in the impugned order survives, registration under section 12AB shall be granted in accordance with law. The restoration in this category shall not be treated as an occasion for embarking upon an unrestricted de novo enquiry on grounds which did not form the basis of the impugned order.

(ii) Cases where registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is under process: Where the concerned assessee has already applied for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and such application is pending before the competent authority, the assessee shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to produce the certificate as and when it is issued. The Ld. CIT(E) may appropriately regulate the proceedings in the interregnum having regard to the status of such application. Since the issuance of the certificate thereafter rests within the domain of another statutory authority, the assessee should not be compelled to recommence the entire process under section 12AB merely because the certificate remained awaited at the relevant point of time. Upon its production, the Ld. CIT(E) shall verify the certificate and thereafter carry the application under section 12AB to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.

(iii) Cases where genuineness of activities has also been questioned: The concerned assessee shall be permitted to furnish the complete primary material relating to its activities, including its accounts, details of charitable programmes or activities actually undertaken, supporting evidence and such other documents as may reasonably be required. The Ld. CIT(E) shall independently examine whether the activities are genuine and whether they bear a real and discernible nexus with the stated objects. An earlier failure to establish genuineness for want of adequate material shall not, by itself, be treated as a concluded positive finding that the activities are non-genuine. If any specific adverse material is proposed to be relied upon, the same shall first be confronted to the assessee and an effective opportunity of explanation and rebuttal shall be afforded before drawing any adverse inference. The issue shall thereafter be decided by recording a reasoned finding on the material as a whole.

(iv) Cases involving incomplete Form No. 10AB, application under an incorrect clause or other curable procedural deficiencies: The concerned assessee shall be afforded an opportunity to rectify the defect in the prescribed form, furnish the appropriate application and place the supporting material on record, insofar as such rectification is permissible under the applicable statutory framework. Upon such rectification, the substantive eligibility of the assessee shall be examined and the application decided in accordance with law. This direction shall not be construed as overriding any requirement relating to limitation, eligibility or any other substantive condition prescribed by the statute.

(v) Cases involving non-compliance with notices or inadequate supporting material: The concerned assessees shall be afforded one final and effective opportunity to furnish the documents, accounts, explanations and other material required for examination of their applications. The opportunity is intended to facilitate substantive adjudication and shall not be treated as an avenue for repeated default or indefinite prolongation of the proceedings. The assessees shall extend full cooperation and comply with the requirements of the Ld. CIT(E) within the time allowed. Upon such compliance, the applications shall be examined on merits and disposed of by reasoned and speaking orders. If there is further unjustified non-compliance despite the opportunity now granted, the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the material available before him.

(vi) Applications seeking approval under section 80G: Wherever approval under section 80G has been rejected substantially or consequentially because registration under section 12AB was absent or had itself been rejected, the corresponding order under section 80G shall also stand set aside and the application shall be restored. Upon determination of the proceedings under section 12AB in accordance with the category applicable to the concerned assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) shall examine the conditions specifically governing approval under section 80G and, if the same are fulfilled, grant approval in accordance with law. Matters common to both proceedings which have already been duly examined while considering registration under section 12AB need not be mechanically re-examined, but the statutory conditions peculiar to section 80G shall independently be satisfied.

23. Appeals involving more than one reason for rejection: Where an impugned order rests upon more than one of the grounds discussed hereinabove, the directions pertaining to the relevant categories shall apply cumulatively to the extent required for adjudication of those grounds. The mere fact that an appeal has been classified under one principal category in the table appearing hereinabove shall not exclude application of another direction where the impugned order demonstrably contains an additional ground falling within another category. At the same time, the scope of the restored proceedings shall not be enlarged beyond what is reasonably necessary for adjudicating the reasons actually recorded in the impugned order and for examining the statutory requirements legitimately arising therefrom.

24. Common direction governing the restored proceedings: The respective assessees shall place before the Ld. CIT(E), as may be relevant to their cases, the trust deeds or other constitutional documents, registration certificates, accounts, details of activities, supporting evidence and such other material as may reasonably be required. The Ld. CIT(E) shall afford a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing and shall thereafter pass reasoned and speaking orders in accordance with law. The assessees shall, in turn, extend due cooperation and furnish the requisite material within the time allowed. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on an issue which has specifically been left open for determination by the Ld. CIT(E).

Category-wise final directions

25. For ready reference, and to ensure that the nature and extent of the exercise to be undertaken in each category remains clear while giving effect to this consolidated order, the operative position emerging from our findings may be set out as under:

26. Before parting with these appeals, we consider it necessary to emphasise that what has been directed hereinabove is not a wholesale or undifferentiated remand of every application for an enquiry afresh from inception. The nature and width of the restored proceedings must correspond to the precise deficiency which formed the foundation of the respective impugned order. Where the deficiency has already stood cured by subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, the enquiry is correspondingly limited to verification and the surviving statutory requirements; where the cure awaits action by another statutory authority, reasonable opportunity has been preserved so that the subsequent certificate may be brought on record; where the enquiry into genuineness remained incomplete, the issue has been left for a meaningful determination upon the primary material; and where the impediment was procedural or arose from inadequate compliance, an opportunity for permissible rectification or complete compliance has been afforded. The distinction is material because restoration is not an end in itself; it is merely the procedural consequence of our conclusion as to what remains legitimately to be examined before the statutory claim can be finally determined. The Ld. CIT(E) shall, therefore, give effect to the directions in the perspective in which they have been issued and with reference to the category assigned to the respective appeal in the appeal-wise table forming part of this order.

27. Equally, the opportunity afforded by this order should result in a meaningful culmination of the proceedings. The respective assessees shall place the requisite material before the Ld. CIT(E) with due diligence and shall not seek avoidable adjournments. The Ld. CIT(E), on his part, shall confine the restored enquiry to the matters which legitimately survive in terms of the findings recorded hereinabove, afford reasonable opportunity wherever an adverse view is proposed to be taken and thereafter decide the applications in accordance with law by reasoned orders. Save to the extent of the specific findings and directions recorded by us, we have consciously refrained from expressing any concluded opinion on the ultimate eligibility of the respective assessees, and those questions which require factual verification are left open for determination by the prescribed authority.

28. In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in terms of the findings and category-wise directions recorded hereinabove and as identified in the appeal-wise classification forming part of this consolidated order. The appeals involving restoration of the respective applications to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 14 / 08 / 2026.