Environmental Social Governance & Company Secretary Foundation Vs CIT(Exemption) (ITAT Chennai)
“Full Details Not Furnished”- But Which Details? Chennai ITAT Restores Section 12AB Application
Summary: A registration application under section 12AB cannot be rejected on a general statement that “full and complete details” were not furnished when the order does not identify which documents or particulars are missing. The Chennai ITAT applied this principle while setting aside the CIT(E)’s rejection of the application filed by Environmental Social Governance & Company Secretary Foundation. The Tribunal has not granted registration to the Foundation. It has restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after examining the material already furnished and giving the Foundation a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Reply Filed, but Application Rejected
The Foundation had filed Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB. During its consideration, the CIT(E), Chennai, issued a show cause notice dated 29 October 2025 asking why the application should not be rejected. The Foundation submitted a reply.
The CIT(E), however, held that the Foundation had not furnished full and complete details and rejected the application by order dated 26 June 2026. Before the Tribunal, the Foundation argued that it had provided extensive subheadings, clarifications and details of its proposed programmes or activities, but these had not been duly considered. If any further information was needed, it submitted, the CIT(E) should have asked for it specifically.
The Department supported the rejection order.
The Deficiency Was Never Identified
The Tribunal examined the manner in which the application had been rejected. It found that the CIT(E) had neither identified the specific documents or particulars considered deficient nor asked the Foundation for further clarification. In those circumstances, a rejection based on a general observation that complete details were not furnished could not be sustained.
The ITAT therefore set aside the CIT(E)’s order and restored the application for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It directed the CIT(E) to give the Foundation a reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide the application after considering its submissions and evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Author’s Comments
The order addresses the process of deciding a registration application, rather than the Foundation’s substantive eligibility. A trust or institution must provide the information needed to examine its application. Equally, where an authority considers a response incomplete, identifying the remaining deficiency allows the applicant to address it and makes the eventual decision capable of meaningful review.
The decision does not say that filing a detailed reply automatically entitles an institution to section 12AB registration. The CIT(E) must now consider the Foundation’s material and reach a fresh decision under the statutory requirements. The Foundation, in turn, should respond fully to any specific clarification sought during those proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai dated 26.06.2026, rejecting Form No.10AB filed for seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’).
2. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(E) issued a show-cause notice dated 29.10.2025 calling upon the assessee trust to explain as to why its application should not be rejected. The assessee furnished its reply thereto. However, the CIT(E) observed that the assessee had not furnished the full and complete details and, accordingly, rejected the application. The Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(E) had not duly considered the extensive sub-headings, clarifications and programmatic details furnished by the assessee during the processing of the application. It was submitted that, if any further details or clarification were considered necessary, the CIT(E) ought to have called upon the assessee to furnish the same, rather than rejecting the application on the general observation that full and complete details had not been furnished. Accordingly, the Ld.AR pleaded that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
3. The ld.DR supported the order of CIT(E).
4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Ld.AR submitted that the detailed sub-headings, clarifications and programmatic details furnished during the processing of the application were not duly considered by the CIT(E). We find that the CIT(E), while rejecting the application for want of full and complete details, has neither identified the specific documents or particulars stated to be deficient nor called upon the assessee to furnish any further clarification. In the absence of such specific identification, the rejection of the application on a general observation of non-furnishing of complete details, in our considered view, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The CIT(E) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the application afresh after considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd September, 2026 at Chennai.
