Cyberverse Foundation Vs CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Fresh U/s 12AB & 80G Applications Must Be Examined Independently; Earlier Rejection Does Not Bar Fresh Consideration – ITAT Bangalore
The Bangalore ITAT held that a fresh application for registration under sections 12AB and 80G cannot be rejected merely because an earlier application had been rejected and the earlier order was not challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, and therefore each application has to be independently examined on the basis of the facts, documents and material placed on record at the time of the fresh application.
In the present case, the CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s fresh Form 10AB application solely by relying upon the earlier rejection order, without independently evaluating the current objects, activities and supporting documents. The assessee also contended that it had not received the notices issued by the CIT(E), resulting in its inability to furnish a response. The Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked independent application of mind, was mechanical in nature, and failed to consider the merits of the fresh application.
Accordingly, invoking the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders rejecting registration under sections 12AB and 80G and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to examine the fresh application afresh, consider the documents and explanations furnished by the assessee, provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and thereafter pass a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vide DIN Nos. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025- 26/1083855795(1) and ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1083855866(1) both dated 18.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2025-26.
2. At the outset it is noticed that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 58 days before the Tribunal. On perusal of the petition for condonation of delay, we are of the view that assessee has given sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We therefore condone the delay of 58 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are assessee being a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, for the purpose of carrying out charitable activities. The assessee had filed an application for registration under section 12AB on 29.08.2022, which was rejected vide order dated 23.02.2023 on merits. Subsequently, assessee filed fresh application in Form 10AB on 26.09.2025 seeking grant of registration under sections 12A(1)(ac)(iv) and 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. However, the learned CIT(E) on perusal of the earlier orders rejected the application as not maintainable since the assessee has not challenged the earlier rejection order dated 23.02.2023 before the Tribunal. A show cause notice dated 24.11.2025 was issued directing the assessee to submit a reply by 01.12.2025, however, no reply was submitted. Accordingly, the application for registration was rejected.
4. On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(E), assessee is in appeal before us. The only issue emanating from the grounds is with respect to rejection of registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Act based on previous rejection order. The learned AR submitted that assessee was not in receipt of any of the notices issued by the learned CIT(E) and hence could not reply. The learned AR further submitted that since assessee has made fresh application dated 26.09.2025, the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration based on the previous rejection without considering the current facts and the material on record. He therefore pleaded that the file may be remanded back to the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application and direct him to pass a speaking order considering the present documents on record.
5. Per contra, the learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the learned CIT(E) has placed reliance on the earlier rejection order while rejecting the present application filed by the assessee on 26.09.2025. In our view, each application for registration is required to be considered independently whereas the earlier rejection does not operate as res judicata in income tax proceedings. The learned CIT(E) ought to have freshly examined the objects and genuine activities of the Trust based on the current material furnished by the assessee. We note that in the present case, the assessee has not received notices issued by the learned CIT(E). We find that impugned order does not demonstrate any independent application of mind to the documents filed with the fresh application. The rejection is thus mechanical and based on past conclusions. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find that order passed by the learned CIT(E) is not sustainable as it has been passed without examining the present application on merits. We note that in the present case, the assessee has not received notices issued by the learned CIT(E). We, therefore, following the principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders and the matter is restored to the file of learned CIT(E) with a direction to examine the application afresh with reference to the documents and explanations filed by the assessee and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed statistically.
7. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
