आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1128/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad. The DCIT, PIN - 500 028. vs. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad.

PAN AAATH3789F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 30.09.2024 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad, passed u/sec.12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 whereby the registration of the assessee society granted u/sec.12A of the Act was cancelled.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. “The Ld. CIT(E) has grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the Order u/s 12AB(4) of the Act, dt. 30.09.2024.

2. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12A of the Act without considering the facts of the case which is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

3. The Ld. CIT(E) erroneously taken up for re-determining the issue of registration u/s 12AA, giving a bye-pass to the superior judicial authority's decision i.e, the Hon'ble ITAT dt. 07.09.2021 in the present case only, on the same issue for the impugned asst. year, which is legally bad in law.

3.1. The L.d. CIT(E) ought to have appreciated the fact that the question of the registration u/s 12A to the appellant had already been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT vide order no. 361/Hyd/2019 dt. 07.09.2021 cancelling the CIT(E) order u/s 12A of the Act.

3.2 The Ld. CIT(E) ought to have appreciated the judicial discipline that, when a higher judicial authority gives a legal decision on an appeal, the lower judicial authority has to faithfully and judiciously follow and do the consequential action, even if the decision of the higher authority is unacceptable and that not following the above decision is contemptuous.

3.3 The very revisiting of the issue again by the CIT(E) when the ITAT order is still in force, especially when the AO had passed consequential order too, is not as per law.

3.4. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in passing of order u/s 12AB(4), on the already decided issue, which is against all the procedures/norms and judicial discipline.

4. The issue of cancellation of registration u/s 12AA is already appealed before High Court by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide ITTA No. ITTA 227/2022 on 05.07.2022. While this being so, passing an order u/s 12AB(4) is legally un-sustainable.

4.1. The Ld. CIT(E) ought not to have cancelled the registration u/s 12A of the appellant, second time, when ITAT sustained the registration and even when the appeal of Dept. against such ITAT order is subjudice before hon'ble High Court.

4.2. The Ld. CIT(E) ought to have fairly appreciated the legal and judicial discipline that no Administrative or Executive Authority can ignore or sit on the judgement of higher Judicial forum, except filing an appeal before still higher Judicial Authority.

4.3. The Id. CIT(E) has erred in revisiting the issue of Registration u/s

12A of the Act, when the ITAT order is already existing and especially when the appeal of dept., against such ITAT order is pending disposal before hon'ble High Court.

5. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in entertaining the reference made by Ld. AO by merely relying on the 2nd proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Act as introduced vide Finance Act 2022, w.e.f 01.04.2022, ignoring the already existing order of ITAT on the issue for the same year.

5.1. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in fairly appreciating the legal position when the issue has been already decided by the Hon'ble ITAT, lower authority cannot review the decision of higher authority by ignoring the pro