ITAT Sets Aside Premature 12A and 80G Application Rejections

International Society for Life Sciences Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Jaipur)

Pending Registration Applications Must Be Decided Before Renewal Rejection: Jaipur ITAT

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside orders rejecting applications for registration and approval under Sections 12A and 80G, holding that the Commissioner should first have decided the connected applications pending after an earlier Tribunal remand. In International Society for Life Sciences v. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur, ITA Nos. 1040 and 1041/JPR/2026, pronounced on 4 November 2026, the Tribunal held that the rejection orders were premature. It directed the CIT(E) to decide the earlier remanded matters first and thereafter examine the subsequent applications in accordance with law. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

Background: Society Held Provisional Registration and Approval

The appellant society, engaged in charitable activities, had been granted provisional registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) through an order dated 4 April 2022. It also received provisional approval under Section 80G on 28 June 2022. The society subsequently applied for regular registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and regular approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected those applications through orders dated 30 December 2024. The Commissioner also cancelled the society’s existing provisional registration and provisional approval. The society challenged those decisions before the Tribunal.

Earlier Rejection Orders Had Been Set Aside

By an order dated 4 June 2025, the Tribunal set aside the earlier orders and directed the CIT(E) to decide the matters afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the applications concerning the society’s registration and approval returned to the Commissioner for reconsideration. Those proceedings remained pending when the society’s subsequent applications came to be examined. This procedural position was central to the present dispute. The society’s registration status was still awaiting fresh adjudication pursuant to the Tribunal’s earlier directions.

Subsequent Form 10AB Applications Were Rejected

On 29 September 2025, the society filed further applications in Form 10AB, seeking registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under the corresponding renewal provision of Section 80G(5). The CIT(E) issued a deficiency notice asking the society to justify its eligibility. The Commissioner subsequently rejected both applications on 22 February 2026, essentially because the society did not possess the existing registration or approval required for the category under which it had applied. The rejection referred to the earlier December 2024 orders and treated the Form 10AB applications as deficient or ineligible. The society appealed, arguing that this approach ignored the Tribunal’s earlier remand.

Existing Registration Was the Basis of Rejection

The CIT(E)’s reasoning was that the renewal route applied to an institution already holding the requisite registration or approval. Since the December 2024 orders had rejected regular registration and cancelled provisional registration, the Commissioner considered the society ineligible to use that route. However, those earlier rejection and cancellation orders had already been set aside for fresh consideration. The society therefore objected to its subsequent applications being rejected on the basis of a registration position that remained unresolved before the same authority. The Tribunal examined whether such rejection could be sustained while the foundational applications were still pending.

Tribunal Found the Rejections Premature

The ITAT noted that, when the impugned orders were passed on 22 February 2026, the earlier remanded applications had not been decided. It held that the CIT(E), acting as a quasi-judicial authority, was required to dispose of those pending matters first. Only after determining the society’s position in the earlier proceedings could the Commissioner properly examine the subsequent applications. The Tribunal therefore rejected the approach of immediately declaring the later applications deficient because the society lacked documents establishing the required registration. In the circumstances, the absence of those documents could not be assessed independently of the unresolved proceedings that would determine the underlying registration position.

Connected Proceedings Required Proper Sequence

The Tribunal emphasised the sequence in which the applications should be adjudicated. The earlier remand concerned the society’s registration and approval status. The later applications depended upon that status. Deciding the later matters first created an avoidable cycle of rejection and appeal while the connected foundational issue remained undecided. The Tribunal held that the earlier applications should receive priority, followed by consideration of the present applications. It also observed that this approach would serve the interests of justice by curtailing multiplicity of proceedings.

Fresh Decision Directed After Hearing

The Tribunal set aside both orders dated 22 February 2026 and directed fresh adjudication after providing the society an adequate opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) must first decide the applications pending pursuant to the order dated 4 June 2025 and then decide the subsequent applications according to law. The decision does not itself grant registration under Section 12A or approval under Section 80G. It restores the applications for examination in the correct sequence. Its significance lies in requiring a pending foundational registration dispute to be resolved before dependent applications are rejected on that very ground.

Cases Discussed

Earlier order of ITAT Jaipur in International Society for Life Sciences Vs CIT(E), ITA Nos. 277 & 288/JP/2025, dated 04.06.2025 (as identified in the present judgment; the judgment also contains a conflicting reference to 04.06.2026).

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR

The Appellants, International Society for Life Sciences by filing aforesaid interconnected appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 22.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the grounds inter-alia that:-

ITA No. 1040/JPR/2026

“1. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) for renewal of registration u/s 12A.

2. The ld. CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in declaring the application filed on 29.09.2025 in form 10AB, as deficient/not eligible. The Ld. CIT(E) ignored the order of the Honourable ITAT setting aside the order of rejection of application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii).”

ITA No. 1041/JPR/2026

“1. The ld. CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application under proviso clause (ii) to section 80G(5) for renewal of approval u/s 80G.

2. The ld. CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in declaring the application filed on 29.09.2025 in form 10AB for grant of approval under proviso clause (ii) to section 80G(5), as deficient/not eligible. The ld. CIT(E) ignored the order of Honourable ITAT setting aside the order of rejection of application under proviso clause (iii) to section 80G for permanent approval.

2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : Applications moved by the appellant in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) were rejected on the ground that since the appellant is not already registered u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, the present application is not maintainable. The present appeals are outcome of the multiple litigations for seeking approval/renewal of registration/approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and 80G(5)(ii) of the Act, pending before the Tribunal as well as before the Ld. CIT(E), the detail of which is extracted for ready perusal as under:-

International Society for Life Sciences

Sequence of events

3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E), appellant has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals.

4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file.

5. Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application moved by the appellant by returning following findings, which are extracted for ready perusal as under:-

“The applicant filed an online application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration 01-Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A.

As per provisions of 01-Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12Athe application under this section is to be filed in the case:-

“(ii) where the institution or fund is approved and the period of such approval is due to expire, at least six months prior to expiry of the said period”.

From the plain reading of 01-Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12Aof the I.T. Act, 1961, it is evident that the application under this section is to be filed by the trust or institution which is already approved u/s 12Aof the Act.

02. On perusal of the application filed by the applicant, it was noticed that the applicant is not eligible for registration 01-Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub section (1) of section 12A of the Act since it was not already registration under clause (i) or (iii) of first proviso to 01-Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A. To clarify the same, the applicant was issued a letter/notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025-26/1084895409(1) dated 18.01.2026 to justify its claim for registration 01-Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act on or before 23.01.2026. In response to the above deficiency letter/notice, the assessee has furnished its reply. On perusal of reply and this office record, it is also noticed that the trust has earlier rejected vide this office dated 30.12.2024 and provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (vi) dated 04.04.2022 has been cancelled by this order. Thus, the applicant has not having valid registration under clause (1) or (iii) 12A(1)(ac).

03. Further, on perusal of the details furnished by the assesse alongwith form 10AB and on verification from departmental website, it is noticed the applicant is not already registered under clause (i) or (iii) of first proviso to 12A(1)(ac) (ii) of the Act. Thus, the Form 10AB submitted is deficient in absence of the document required. In view of the above, the applicant is not eligible for registration 01-Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act, as not already registered under clause (i) or (iii) of first proviso to 12A(1)(ac) (ii) of the Act. Therefore, application filed on 29.09.2025 in Form 10AB for grant of registration 01-Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A is hereby rejected as being deficient/not eligible.”

6. Bare perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) apparently goes to prove that the applications moved by the appellant in Form No. 10AB seeking registration and approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and 80G(5)(ii) of the Act were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on the ground that since the appellant is not already registered under clause (i) or (iii) of first proviso to section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, this application is not maintainable.

7. Undisputedly, the appellant society being engaged in charitable activities was granted registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act vide order dated 04.04.2022 and provisional approval u/s 80G of the Act vide order dated 28.06.2022. It is also not in dispute that the appellant then filed application for grant of regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and for regular approval u/s 80G of the Act, which were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 30.12.2024. It is also not in dispute that the Ld. CIT(E) has also cancelled the appellant’s subsisting provisional registration dated 04.04.2022 and provisional approval dated 28.06.2022. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid orders (supra) passed by the Ld. CIT(E) cancelling registration of the appellant were challenged before the Tribunal, who has set aside the same vide order dated 04.06.2025 directing the Ld. CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard in accordance with law. It is also not in dispute that on the date of passing of the impugned orders (supra) by the Ld. CIT(A), earlier applications of the appellant remanded back by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.06.2025 were pending adjudication on the date of rejecting the applications filed by the appellant, seeking registration and approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and U/s 80G of the Act.

8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

“the sole issue arises for determination in this case is as to whether the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting applications moved by the appellant seeking registration/approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act are sustainable in the face of the facts that on the said date appellant’s application seeking registration under clause (ii) for provisional registration under clause (vi) with consequential approval u/s 80G of the Act were pending before the Ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication as per order passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.06.2026 in ITA No. 277 & 288/JP/2025 in case of

9. In the face of the undisputed facts that when on the date of passing of the impugned orders i.e. dated 22.02.2026, applications moved by the appellant for provisional registration/approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) and 80G of the Act were pending before the ld. CIT(E) having remanded back by the Tribunal for afresh decision as per order of the tribunal dated 04.06.2025 (supra) the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

10. Ld. CIT(E) being a quasi judicial authority was required to dispose off the application seeking provisional registration/approval by the appellant as remanded by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.06.2025 (supra) first and then to dispose off the present applications. The impugned orders are passed by the Ld. CITE) prematurely.

11. We are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(E) was required to decide the applications moved by the appellant seeking provisional registration/approval having been remanded back by the Tribunal on priority basis and not to jump to the conclusion by passing of the impugned orders on the sole ground that application filed by the appellant in Form No. 10AB is deficient in the absence of the documents required.

12. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(E) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence set aside to be decided afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(E) to decide the application seeking provisional registration/approval pending before him as per order passed by the Tribunal dated 04.06.2025 (supra), first and then to decide the present applications in accordance with law as it would be in the interest of justice to curtail multiplicity of proceedings.

13. Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04-11-2026 .