LAKULISH YOGASHRAM HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD V. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 1247/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Lakulish Yogashram, a religious-cum-charitable institution, which appealed against the rejection of its applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad. The CIT(E) had rejected the applications due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and failure to provide adequate documentation to demonstrate the genuineness of the institution's activities. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, noting the Assessee's repeated failure to respond to notices and provide necessary documentation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822294 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution; Procedural lapse

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1247 & 1248/Hyd/2025 [U/sec.12AB and U/sec.80G of the I.T. Act, 1961]. Lakulish Yogashram, Hyderabad – 500 008. Telangana. PAN AACTL3491N vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा /Assessee by: -None- राज̾ व Ȫारा /Revenue by: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 22.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against two separate Orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [in short “learned CIT(E)”], Hyderabad, both dated 18.06.2025 whereby the application of the assessee for registration u/sec.12AB as well as approval u/sec.80G of the Income Tax Act [in short \"the Act\"], 1961 were rejected. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.Nos.1247 & 1248/Hyd./2025 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when these appeals were called for hearing. Even nobody appeared till the Bench retires on discharge of the Board of the day i.e., on 22.12.2025. It transpires from the record that even on the earlier two occasions, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee and notices were issued to the assessee through speed post AD as well as email on the email-ID given in Form-36. The notice issued through speed post AD received back with the postal remark “incomplete address” which was given by the assessee in Form- 36/Memo of appeal. However, the notices issued through email on the email-ID given in Form-36 were duly delivered, but, nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, the Bench was left with no option, but to hear and dispose of these appeals ex-parte. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption) erred both in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB without appreciating the genuine nature of activities and charitable objectives of the appellant institution 2. That the rejection of application is based solely on alleged \"non- compliance\" with notices dated 27.03.2025, 19.05.2025, and Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.Nos.1247 & 1248/Hyd./2025 06.06.2025, without considering the practical challenges and procedural issues that prevented timely submissions 3. That the appellant was not given adequate and effective opportunity to furnish documents as there was either no Intimation received or the e-filing system malfunctioned, which prevented uploading of documents on the ITBA portal. 4. That the appellant is a genuine religious-cum-charitable institution conducting bona fide activities since inception, and there was no finding that activities were not genuine. 5. That the Commissioner failed to make any adverse comment on the objects of the trust or any evidence to suggest that the trust was not engaged in charitable/religious activities 6. That the rejection of the application merely on procedural lapses, without examining the substantive merit and nature of activities of the appellant, is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 4. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has submitted that the assessee was not given adequate and effective opportunity to furnish the documents as there was either no intimation received or the e-filing system malfunction are prevented for uploading of the documents on the ITBA portal. However, the assessee has not brought any material on record to show that there was a malfunction of the ITBA portal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.Nos.1247 & 1248/Hyd./2025 5. The learned DR has submitted that despite the repeated notices issued by the learned CIT(E), there was no response on behalf of the assessee to comply with the notices as well as filing the requisite details and documents before the learned CIT(E) and consequently, the applications of the assessee were rejected. Due to non-compliance of the notices and non-furnishing of the requisite details and documents, the learned CIT(E) was not satisfied about the genuineness of the activities of the assessee as well as the overall affairs of the assessee trust that its activities are carried out to achieve the objects of the trust. The learned DR has thus, contended that the assessee is a non-serious organisation and, therefore, the learned CIT(E) has rightly rejected the applications of the assessee for registration u/sec.12AB as well as approval u/sec.80G of the Act. 6. We considered the grounds of appeal, the submissions of the learned DR and carefully perused the impugned orders of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) has issued notices dated 27.03.2025, 19.05.2025 and 06.06.2025. However, there were no compliance/response on Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.Nos.1247 & 1248/Hyd./2025 behalf of the assessee to these notices and, therefore, the requisite details and documents were not submitted by the assessee before the learned CIT(E) for examination and arriving to the decision that the activities of the assessee trust are genuine and are being carried-out to achieve the objects of the trust as well as charitable nature of the objects of the trust. Thus, due to no compliance on behalf of the assessee, the applications were rejected by the learned CIT(E) by giving reasons in Para nos.4 to 6 as under : “4. Non-compliance 4.1. As mentioned in point numbers 2.2 to 2.4 the applicant NGO was issued two questionnaires and also final opportunity letter to furnish the requisite details. 4.2. However, the applicant NGO did not comply to the any of the above three notices. Therefore, for the above reasons also the application filed in form 10AB seeking registration cannot be considered. 5. Moreover, as explained in para 2 of this order, as per the provisions of section 12AB (1)(b) clause (ii) (B) of the I.T. Act, 1961, if the application is made under sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (v) of section 12A(1)(ac) and the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has not satisfied, he can reject the application as well as cancel the registration of the Society/institution. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA.Nos.1247 & 1248/Hyd./2025 5.1. Considering all the above facts, the application filed under the section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in Form 10AB is not maintainable and as such deserves for rejection. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the application filed by the applicant on 05.12.2024 in Form 10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac) (iii) seeking registration us/12AB of the Act is rejected for the reasons enumerated in para 2.1. to 2.4 of this order.” 7. Thus, it is clear that despite repeated notices, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the learned CIT(E) and, therefore, failed to file the relevant details and documents so as the learned CIT(E) satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the trust, the charitable nature of the objects of the trust as well as the activities are carried out for achieving the objects of the trust. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee has neither appeared nor filed any documentary evidence in support of the applications. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Orders of the learned CIT(E) in rejecting the application of the assessee for registration u/sec.12AB as well as approval u/sec.80G of the Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA.Nos.1247 & 1248/Hyd./2025 Act which is consequential to the registration u/sec.12AB of the Act. 8. In the result, appeals of the Assessee are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 24th December, 2025 VBP Copy to : 1. Lakulish Yogashram, 9-8-328/3/A, Langer House, Golconda, Hyderabad – 500 008. Telangana. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Aaykar Bhawan, Opp. LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. PIN – 500 004. Telangana. 3. The Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Hyderabad. 4. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER //True copy// Printed from counselvise.com "