IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2024-25 M/s. Coalition 4TB Elimination The Income Tax Foundation, Officer F-20161, T-20, Prestige (Exemptions), Ferns Residency, Ward – 1, HSR Layout, Vs. Bangalore.

Bengaluru – 560 102.

PAN: AALCC3956D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Ms. Sakshi Deshpande and Assessee by :

Shri Kirath Singh, Advocates Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, Revenue by :

CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17-10-2025

ORDER

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER These are the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the rejection of the application filed for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and the application filed for approval u/s. 80G of the Act on 21/01/2025 and raised the following grounds:

“1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ("CIT(E)"), under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and probabilities, on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

2. The learned CIT(E) erred in law by rejecting the approval under section 12AB of the Act without issuing a show cause notice proposing such rejection and consequently, the impugned order grossly violates the principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned CIT(E) erred in law in rejecting the approval under section 12AB of the Act by relying on the borrowed satisfaction of the subordinate authorities on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned CIT(E) failed to properly consider the documentary evidence and failed to appreciate that the Appellant fulfills all the necessary conditions for approval under section 12AB of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify, substitute, change and delete any or all of the grounds before the appeal is finally being heard or disposed of.

In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”

“1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ("CIT(E)"), under section BOG of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and probabilities, on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

2. The learned CIT(E) erred in law by rejecting the approval under Section 80G of the Act without issuing a show cause notice proposing such rejection and consequently, the impugned order grossly violates the principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned CIT(E) failed to properly consider the documentary evidence and failed to appreciate that the Appellant fulfills all the necessary conditions for approval under section 80G of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify, substitute, change and delete any or all of the grounds before the appeal is finally being heard or disposed of.

In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a section 8 company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and therefore the profits / gains should not be taken and utilised for the purposes other than the objects of the company. Similarly, the company could not declare any dividend out of the profits earned by it. Therefore all the incomes earned during the period should be utilised only for the object of the trust and therefore it is a charitable institution entitled for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. Similarly application for approval u/