Case Law Details
Aradhana Senior Citizen Caring Center Vs CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
The Bangalore ITAT set aside rejection of registration u/s 12AB in the case of Aradhana Senior Citizen Caring Center, observing that absence of a fire safety clearance certificate by itself cannot be a ground to deny charitable registration. The trust, which runs an old-age home on a no-profit basis, had already been granted provisional registration and later final registration u/s 12AB valid up to AY 2025-26. While seeking renewal through Form 10AB with delay condonation request, the CIT(E) rejected the application alleging non-response to notices, existence of cash transactions and absence of fire safety certificate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had in fact responded to notices on multiple occasions, furnished documents both physically and online, and submitted detailed replies regarding cash transactions. The ITAT found the CIT(E)’s observation that no reply was filed to be factually incorrect. The Bench further observed that all cash transactions were stated to be duly recorded in books and mere suspicion could not justify rejection of registration. Importantly, the Tribunal held that non-availability of fire clearance certificate is not a valid reason for refusing registration u/s 12AB. The ITAT also noticed a glaring error in the impugned order where the CIT(E) referred to rejection of approval u/s 80G though the actual application was for registration u/s 12AB. Accordingly, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering all objections and supporting documents filed by the trust.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the rejection order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore [CIT(E)] dated 26.9.2025 in which the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB for registration u/s. 12AB.
2. The assessee is running an old aged home and a public charitable trust established in the year 2019. The assessee trust is running on a no profit basis. The assessee was earlier granted provisional registration u/s. 12A from AY 2021-22. Subsequently final registration u/s. 12AB was granted on 02.12.2022 valid for a period ending AY 2025-26. The said Registration is still in force on the date of impugned order. The assessee in order to renew its registration filed an application on 5.3.2025 with a petition to condone the delay of 157 days.
3. The ld. CIT(E) had originally issued a show cause notice on 28.7.2025 directing the assessee to appear in Bangalore on 5.8.2025. On the very same day, another notice was issued directing the assessee to appear in Mangalore Office. With great difficulty the assessee submitted the reply online for the notice issued and also furnished the documents at the Mangalore Office on 7.8.2025. Thereafter the ld. CIT(E) had issued another notice on 9.8.2025. The assessee appeared in person on 14.8.2025 along with relevant documents. At that time the ld. CIT(E) had issued a handwritten show cause notice in which he raised two issues i.e., transaction in cash and absence of fire safety certificate. The assessee also submitted its reply through online on 25.8.2025 and also furnished the supporting documents. Inspite of that the ld. CIT(E) had rejected the application by stating that the assessee had not replied to the show cause notice and also relied on the two issues of cash transaction and absence of fire safety certificate. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We proceed to dispose of the appeal after perusing the material on record and after hearing the ld. DR. It is stated that the ld. CIT(E) is not correct since the assessee had furnished the requisite documents in Mangalore Office on 7.8.2025 and also submitted the reply through online for the notice issued to appear in Bangalore Office. It is further stated that on 14.8.2025 the assessee again appeared before the CIT(E) along with relevant documents. Thereafter on 25.8.2025 the assessee had submitted electronically their detailed objections and also furnished the supporting documents. Therefore it is stated that the rejection order of the ld. CIT(E) by saying that assessee had not filed the reply to the show cause notice is against the facts of the case and liable to be set aside.
5. Further attention is drawn to the impugned order in which in para 7 it is observed that the application filed by the trust in Form 10AB for approval u/s. 80G of the Act is hereby rejected, whereas the application has been filed for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. It is further submitted that the assessee had accounted all the cash transactions which was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(E), but without considering the same, the ld. CIT(E) had rejected the application on the said ground. Further the non-availability of fire clearance certificate would not be a reason for rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. Therefore the impugned order is bad in law since the replies and documents filed by the assessee were not considered by the ld. CIT(E) and therefore it is prayed to allow the appeal.
6. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee had not responded to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(E) and therefore the impugned order rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12AB is in order.
7. We have heard the ld. DR and considered the submissions of the assessee and also replies filed by the assessee along with documentary evidences. From the said facts, it is clear that the assessee had responded to the notices issued on 2 occasions and therefore the finding of the ld. CIT(E) that the assessee had not responded is not correct. Further it is the case of the assessee that all the cash transactions were duly recorded in the books of account which was also produced before the ld. CIT(E) and in that circumstances on mere doubt the registration could not be denied. Further the non-availability of fire clearance certificate would not be a reason for denying registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the assessee, the application has been filed by the assessee for granting registration u/s. 12AB of the Act, whereas in the order in para 7 the ld. CIT(E) had observed that the application for approval u/s. 80G has been rejected.
8. Considering the entire facts and also the various submissions and documents furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(E), we are of the view that the ld. CIT(E) has not adjudicated the issue by considering the various records and objections filed by the assessee. In such circumstances, we deem it fit to remit this issue to the file of ld. CIT(E) for de novo consideration including the objections as well as the documents furnished by the assessee.
9. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 18th day of May, 2026.
Author Bio
