Case Law Details
HC Kamalamma Nalluru Gowda Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Bangalore)
12AB & 80G Applications Cannot Be Rejected by Ignoring Replies Filed Before ITO- Bangalore ITAT
The Bangalore ITAT set aside the rejection of applications for permanent registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G, holding that the CIT(E) wrongly concluded that the trust had not responded to notices despite the assessee having furnished all details before the Income Tax Officer exactly as directed.
The charitable trust had initially obtained provisional registration and thereafter applied for permanent registration and 80G approval. The CIT(E), however, rejected both applications on the ground that the assessee failed to appear and did not comply with notices. Before the ITAT, the assessee demonstrated through notices and replies that the CIT(E) himself had directed the trust to furnish details before the Income Tax Officer and the same had been duly complied with on 29.09.2025.
The Tribunal carefully examined the notices and found that the assessee had indeed submitted the required documents before the ITO within the prescribed timeline. Therefore, the observation of the CIT(E) that there was non-compliance was contrary to the record itself. The ITAT observed that the applications were rejected without considering the replies and supporting documents already furnished by the trust before the departmental authorities.
Holding that the rejection orders were factually incorrect, the ITAT restored both matters back to the CIT(E) with a direction to consider the responses already filed before the ITO and thereafter decide the applications afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the rejection orders of the Ld.CIT(E) in which the registration sought for u/s. 12AB as well as approval sought for u/s. 80G were denied by an order dated 19/12/2025.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust and got their provisional registration and applied for permanent registration u/s. 12AB of the Act as well as approval u/s. 80G of the Act. The Ld.CIT(E) had rejected both the applications on the ground that the assessee had not responded to the notices and failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(E).
3. As against the said orders, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had appeared before the Income Tax Officer and furnished the various details as directed by the Ld.CIT(E) and therefore the order rejecting the applications are not correct and liable to be set aside. The Ld.AR also relied on the notice issued by the Ld.CIT(E) in which the Ld.CIT(E) had directed the assessee to submit the details before the ITO and therefore submitted that the orders of the Ld.CIT(E) has to be set aside. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) and the reply filed by the assessee before the Income Tax Officer to show that the assessee had complied with the directions given by the Ld.CIT(E).
5. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(E) and prayed to dismiss the appeals.
6. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The assessee had filed an application for granting the permanent registration on 17/06/2025 u/s. 12AB of the Act. Similarly, an application was also filed on 24/06/2025 for granting the approval u/s. 80G of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(E) had issued a notice dated 19/09/2025 requesting the assessee to furnish the various details. On the very same date, the Ld.CIT(E) had issued another communication directing the assessee to furnish the details requested by him to the Income Tax Officer. The assessee also furnished the reply as well as the details before the Income Tax Officer on 29/09/2025. In spite of furnishing of the details before the Income Tax Officer, the Ld.CIT(E) had observed that the assessee had not responded to the notices and on that basis, both the applications were rejected by him.
8. As seen from the documents furnished in the paper book, we are satisfied that the assessee had complied with the directions issued by the Ld.CIT(E) by furnishing the details before the Income Tax Officer. We have also gone through the notice dated 19/09/2025 in which the Ld.CIT(E) had requested the assessee to furnish the details before the Income Tax Officer on or before 29/09/2025. The assessee had also on 29/09/2025 furnished the details and therefore the Ld.CIT(E) without considering the said details filed by the assessee, had rejected the applications as if the assessee had not responded to the notices.
9. In our opinion, the said finding is not correct and also against the fact. We, therefore set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(E) and remit these issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) and directed him to consider the response filed by the assessee before the Income Tax Officer on 29/09/2025 and thereafter decide the issue afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also open to the assessee to furnish any other documents in support of their case at the time of hearing of the matter.
10. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2026.
Author Bio
