Anasuya Mudde Gowda Charitable Trust Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Bangalore)
Summary: The assessee, Anasuya Mudde Gowda Charitable Trust, constituted by deed dated 28.04.2003 with objects including relief to the poor, medical relief and education to the public without discrimination based on caste, community or religion, had obtained provisional registration under Section 12A/12AB and provisional approval under Section 80G for AYs 2022-23 to 2026-27. It filed separate applications in Form 10AB on 16.06.2025 seeking regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(Exemptions), Bengaluru rejected both applications on 19.12.2025 on the ground that the assessee had not responded to notices, appeared for proceedings or furnished the necessary documents/details. Before the Tribunal, however, the assessee produced the notices, replies and acknowledgements showing that, pursuant to the CIT(E)’s directions, it had appeared before the ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Mysuru, and furnished the required details through Tappal on 29.09.2025 and 08.10.2025. On examining the paper book and material on record, the Bangalore ITAT found that the assessee had complied with the directions and that the CIT(E)’s findings that the assessee had not responded to the notices were incorrect, baseless and against the actual facts. In the interest of justice, equity and fair play, the Tribunal therefore remitted both the registration and approval issues to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration in accordance with law after taking into account the responses filed before the ITO(E), with a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to furnish any other documents, records, information, accounts or reports that might be required. Both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes; the Tribunal did not itself grant the Section 12AB registration or Section 80G approval.
Section 12AB and 80G Applications Cannot Be Rejected for Alleged Non-Compliance When Documents Were Duly Filed: Bangalore ITAT
The assessee, Anasuya Mudde Gowda Charitable Trust, was constituted in 2003 with the objects of providing relief to the poor, medical assistance and education, without discrimination based on caste, community or religion. It had been granted provisional registration under Section 12A/12AB and provisional approval under Section 80G for AYs 2022-23 to 2026-27.
The trust filed separate applications in Form 10AB on 16 June 2025 seeking regular registration under Section 12AB and final approval under Section 80G. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected both applications on the ground that the assessee had not responded to the notices, appeared for the proceedings or submitted the documents necessary to establish the genuineness of its activities and compliance with the statutory conditions.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee produced the notices, replies and acknowledgements demonstrating that, in accordance with the CIT(E)’s directions, it had appeared before the ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Mysuru, and submitted the required details through tappal on 29 September 2025 and 8 October 2025.
After examining the records, the Bangalore ITAT found that the assessee had, in fact, complied with the notices and furnished the required documents before the designated ITO(E). Therefore, the CIT(E)’s finding that the trust had failed to respond was held to be factually incorrect, baseless and contrary to the material on record.
In the interest of justice, equity and fair play, the Tribunal set aside both rejection orders and restored the applications for Section 12AB registration and Section 80G approval to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the replies and documents already filed before the ITO(E), provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide both applications afresh in accordance with law. The trust was also directed to furnish any further documents, accounts or reports that may be called for.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders of the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Bengaluru both dated 19.12.2025 vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025- 26/1083868283 (1) rejecting the registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) and vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1083868371 (1) rejecting the approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Since the issue involved in these appeals are inter-related, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 363/Bang/2026 in which the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: –
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also cancelling the provisional approval granted to the appellant. The impugned order is bad in law, void ab initio and is liable to be quashed.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 12AB of the Act on the ground that the appellant has neither responded to the notices issued nor appeared before the CIT(Exemptions). On proper appreciation of facts and the law applicable, the appellant having complied with all the notices issued, the rejection of registration u/s 12AB of the Act is in gross violation of principles of natural justice is to be disregarded.
3.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has failed to consider:
a) That the appellant’s objectives are charitable in nature.
b) That the activities of the appellant are genuine and in line with its stated objects.
c) That the appellant has complied with all legal and regulatory requirements material to achieving its objectives.
3.2 On proper appreciation of facts and evidence available and the law applicable, the appellant having complied with all the legal conditions laid down under section 12AB(1) of the Act is entitled to registration under the Act and same is to be granted to the appellant.
4. In any case and without further prejudice, the Act of Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) cancelling the provisional registration granted is not in accordance of law and therefore the impugned order is to be quashed.
5. In view of the above and on such other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order be quashed or at least it be directed that the appellant is to be granted for registration u/s. 12AB(1) of the Act and the cancellation of provisional registration be negated.
3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.352/Bang/2026, which are reproduced below: –
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in passing the impugned order, by rejecting the approval u/s 80G of the Act and also cancelling the provisional approval granted in the manner passed, the order as passed is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application filed for approval of recognition u/s 80G of the Act holding that the appellant has not submitted necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the activities of the appellant. On proper appreciation of facts and the law applicable, the appellant having complied with all the notices with necessary documentary evidences, the rejection of final recognition u/s 80G of the Act is in gross violation of principles of natural justice is to be disregarded.
3. In any case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in clause (i) to (v) of section 80G of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, the appellant having complied with all the conditions, is entitled for approval u/s 80G of the Act and same is to be granted to the appellant.
4. In any case and without further prejudice, the act of Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) cancelling the provisional registration granted is not in accordance of law and therefore the impugned order is to be quashed.
5. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order be quashed or at least it be held that the appellant be entitled for approval under section 80G of the Act and the cancellation of provisional approval be negated.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered Charitable Trust constituted by way of deed of trust dated 28.04.2003. The main object of the trust is to provide relief to the poor, medical relief and education to the public. The above benefits are given to the members of the public regardless of the consideration of caste, community or religion. The assessee trust was provisionally registered under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act on 24.3.2022 vide unique registration no.(URN) AAATA9014AE20032 effective from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. The assessee trust is also provisionally granted approval under clause (i) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G on 24.03.2022 vide unique registration No.(URN) AAATA9014AF20105 effective from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. The assessee trust thereafter applied for regular registration u/s 12AB of the Act as well as approval u/s 80G of the Act in Form 10AB on 16.06.2025. The ld. CIT (Exemptions) Bengaluru rejected both the applications filed in Form No.10AB dated 16.06.2025 on the ground that the assessee had not responded to the notices issued and failed to appear and submit all the necessary documents/details required for registration u/s 12AB of the Act/approval u/s 80G of the Act.
5. Against the said orders of the ld. CIT (Exemptions) both dated 19.12.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeals before this Tribunal.
6. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention on page no.45 to 49 of the paper book and vehemently submitted that in fact in response to notices by ld. CIT(Exemptions) wherein it was directed to explain the case to ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Mysuru, the assessee appeared before the ld. ITO(E) on 29.09.2025 with regard to approval u/s 80G of the Act and on 08.10.2025 with regard to registration u/s 12AB of the Act and submitted the details as called for by the ld. ITO(E). The ld. A.R. also filed a paper book enclosing the notices issued by the ld. CIT (Exemptions) and the reply filed by the assessee before the AO through Tappal to show that the assessee had complied with the direction of the ld. CIT (Exemptions).
7. The ld. D.R. on the other hand, relied on the order of ld. CIT (Exemptions) for both these appeals.
8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was provisionally registered under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act on 24.3.2022 vide unique registration No.(URN) AAATA9014AE20032 effective from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee trust was also provisionally granted approval under clause (i) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G on 24.03.2022 vide unique registration No.(URN) AAATA9014AF20105 effective from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. The assessee had filed a separate applications in form no.10AB for granting both the registration u/s 12AB of the Act and for approval u/s 80G of the Act on 16.06.2025. Thereafter, the ld. CIT (Exemptions) issued notices dated 29.09.2025 as well as SCN dated 14.10.2025 requesting the assessee to furnish the various details. The contention of the assessee is that as per the direction of ld. CIT (Exemptions) only, the assessee had furnished the details before the AO on 29.09.2025 and 08.10.2025. Further, the AR submitted that in spite of furnishing the details before the AO, the ld. CIT (Exemptions) had observed that assessee had not responded to notices and accordingly rejected both the applications filed by the assessee.
8.1 On perusal of the paper book furnished by the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee had complied with the directions issued by the ld. CIT (Exemptions) by furnishing the details before the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions). We have also gone through the notice dated 19.09.2025 in which we noticed that the ld. CIT (Exemptions) had requested the assessee to furnish the details before the ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Mysuru on or before 29.09.2025. We also observed that the assessee on 29.09.2025 as well as on 08.10.2025 had submitted the various details as required by the AO through Tappal for granting registration & approval and the ld. CIT (Exemptions) without considering the said details filed by the assessee had rejected the applications as if the assessee had not responded to the notices. In our considered opinion, the findings as given by ld. CIT (Exemptions) in both these orders dated 19/12/2025 are incorrect, baseless and against the actual facts. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit both the issues of Registration as well as Approval to the file of ld. CIT (Exemptions) to decide afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the response filed by the assessee before the ITO (Exemptions), Mysuru. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish any other documents/records/information /accounts/reports as may be required by the ld. CIT (Exemptions) for granting registration/approval. It is ordered accordingly.
9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Aug, 2026
