2025 (2) TMI 1200 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of applications for permanent registration u/s 12AB - applications of assessee-trust were rejected by ld. CIT(E) by taking view that assessee has already holding valid Provisional registration or approval and that such application is not maintainable. HELD THAT - We find that Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Susamskar Foundation 2024 (6) TMI 971 - ITAT KOLKATA on identical facts held that assessee-trust had been granted provisional registration which was valid till assessment year 2026-27 and assessee and applied for final registration before expiry of said period but Commissioner rejected same on ground that application of assessee was premature since there was no bar to move an application before period of six months from expiry of provisional registration matter was to be remanded back for consideration of application on merits. Also in Avileen Education Foundation 2025 (1) TMI 1168 - ITAT PUNE also held that where issue of grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) has already been remanded back for de novo adjudication it would be appropriate to remit issue of grant of approrval under section 80G(5) as well being consequential for de novo adjudication. Thus application of assessee for registration of approval registration under section 12A/12AB is restored back for the de novo consideration and to pass order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before deciding the application afresh the ld. CIT(E) shall grant reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee and further to allow to make further submission to prove the objects of assessee-trust and its activities. Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this group of appeals are:

(a) Whether the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] had jurisdiction under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to reject applications for fresh or permanent registration under section 12AB when the applicant trusts already held valid provisional registration?

(b) Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting applications for renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Act on the ground that such applications were premature and thus non-maintainable, despite the existence of valid provisional approvals?

(c) Whether the CIT(E) violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the audi alteram partem rule, by rejecting the applications without issuing show cause notices or providing reasonable opportunities of hearing?

(d) Whether applications for permanent registration under section 12AB and renewal of approval under section 80G(5) can be filed prior to the expiry of the provisional registration or approval period, and if so, whether rejection on the ground of prematurity was legally sustainable?

(e) Whether the orders passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the applications without considering the merits and without affording opportunity of hearing are liable to be quashed or set aside?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (d): Jurisdiction and Prematurity of Applications under Section 12AB

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act governs the registration of charitable trusts or institutions, which is a prerequisite for claiming exemption under section 11. The Finance Act, 2021 introduced a new mechanism for registration, including provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i). The proviso to section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) contemplates rejection of applications on certain grounds. The procedural rules and timelines for application and renewal are critical. The Tribunal referred to coordinate bench decisions in Susamskar Foundation vs. CIT(E) and Avileen Education Foundation vs. CIT(E), which held that applications for permanent registration can be filed before the expiry of provisional registration and that rejection on the ground of prematurity was not sustainable.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the applications for permanent registration on the ground that the trusts already held valid provisional registration valid for several assessment years, and thus the applications were premature and non-maintainable. The Tribunal found this approach to be a misreading of the law and procedural provisions. It held that there is no statutory bar on filing applications for permanent registration prior to the expiry of provisional registration. The Tribunal emphasized that the applications should be considered on merits and not rejected outright as premature.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee trusts had valid provisional registrations granted under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) valid for multiple assessment years. The applications for permanent registration under section 12AB were filed well before expiry of provisional registration. The CIT(E) rejected these applications summarily without adjudicating on merits.

Application of law to facts: Applying the legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E) lacked jurisdiction to reject the applications on the ground of prematurity. The applications were maintainable and deserved adjudication on merits.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued for strict adherence to prescribed procedures and timelines to avoid chaotic situations. However, the Tribunal found that procedural strictness cannot override the substantive rights of the assessee to have their applications considered. The Tribunal also noted the Revenue's concession that the matter could be restored for reconsideration.

Conclusions: The Tribunal restored the applications for permanent registration under section 12AB to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo consideration in accordance with law, directing that the assessee be granted reasonable opportunity of hearing and allowed to submit further evidence.

Issue (b) and (d): Jurisdiction and Prematurity of Applications under Section 80G(5)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80G(5) provides for approval of donations to certain funds or institutions for deduction under section 80G. Similar to registration under section 12AB, provisional approvals are granted with validity periods. The third proviso clause (b) sub-clause (B)(II) under section 80G(5) governs rejection of renewal applications. The Tribunal relied on the Pune Bench decision in Avileen Education Foundation vs. CIT(E), which held that where registration under section 12A is remanded for de novo consideration, consequential approval under section 80G(5) should also be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(E) rejected renewal applications under section 80G(5) on the ground that the trusts already held valid provisional approval and that the applications were premature. The Tribunal found this to be a misapplication of law. Given the close connection between registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G(5), the Tribunal held that the issue of approval renewal should also be remanded for fresh consideration.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee trusts held provisional approvals under section 80G(5) valid for specified assessment years. Renewal applications were filed prior to expiry but rejected without merit adjudication.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and the precedent that renewal applications are maintainable before expiry of provisional approval. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications afresh after granting opportunity of hearing.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument for procedural compliance was noted but not accepted as a ground to deny substantive rights. The Tribunal emphasized fairness and due process.

Conclusions: The Tribunal restored the renewal applications under section 80G(5) to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication along with the applications under section 12AB.

Issue (c): Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The audi alteram partem rule is a fundamental principle of natural justice requiring that no person be condemned unheard. The Income Tax Act and related procedural guidelines mandate issuance of show cause notices and reasonable opportunity of hearing before adverse orders are passed.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without issuing any show cause notice or providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee trusts. This was held to be a violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory scheme.

Key evidence and findings: The record showed summary rejection orders in Form 10AD without any prior notice or hearing.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that such procedural lapses rendered the orders illegal and invalid. It directed that on remand, the CIT(E) must grant reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing before passing any order.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the requirement of hearing but emphasized procedural timelines. The Tribunal balanced procedural compliance with fundamental fairness.

Conclusions: The Tribunal quashed the impugned orders for non-compliance with natural justice and directed fresh consideration with opportunity of hearing.

Issue (e): Legality and Validity of Rejection Orders

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Act mandates that registration and approval applications be considered on merits. Summary rejection without jurisdiction or due process is impermissible. The Tribunal relied on earlier coordinate bench decisions emphasizing adjudication on merits and procedural fairness.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found the rejection orders to be without jurisdiction, bad in law, arbitrary, and perverse as they were based on misconceived legal positions and procedural lapses.

Key evidence and findings: The orders were passed on the premise that applications were premature and non-maintainable, without merit examination or hearing.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that such orders are liable to be quashed or annulled and restored the matters for fresh adjudication.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on procedural strictness was rejected in favor of substantive justice.

Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and remanded the matters for de novo consideration in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"We find that Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Susamskar Foundation vs. CIT(E) on identical facts, held that assessee-trust had been granted provisional registration which was valid till assessment year 2026-27 and assessee applied for final registration before expiry of said period but Commissioner rejected same on ground that application of assessee was premature, since there was no bar to move an application before period of six months from expiry of provisional registration, matter was to be remanded back for consideration of application on merits."

"Further, Pune Bench of Tribunal in Avileen Education Foundation vs. CIT(E) also held that where issue of grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) has already been remanded back for de novo adjudication, it would be appropriate to remit issue of grant of approval under section 80G(5) as well, being consequential, for de novo adjudication."

"Before deciding the application afresh, the ld. CIT(E) shall grant reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee and further to allow to make further submission to prove the objects of assessee-trust and its activities. The assessee is also directed to file/furnish any other necessary information, if so desired."

Core principles established include:

• Applications for permanent registration under section 12AB and renewal of approval under section 80G(5) are maintainable even if filed prior to expiry of provisional registration or approval.
• Rejection of such applications on the ground of prematurity without merit adjudication is illegal and without jurisdiction.
• Principles of natural justice require issuance of show cause notices and reasonable opportunity of hearing before rejecting applications.
• Matters remanded for de novo consideration must be decided in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the applicants to present evidence and submissions.

Final determinations on each issue were that the CIT(E)'s orders rejecting applications for registration and approval were quashed, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication consistent with the above principles.