Renewal under Sections 12AB and 80G Cannot Be Rejected Based on Pre-2021 Search Materials

By | August 18, 2026
0 Comment
Renewal under Sections 12AB and 80G Cannot Be Rejected Based on Pre-2021 Search Materials

Issue

Whether the Principal Commissioner can reject an application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G by relying on past search/investigation materials prior to 01-04-2021, rather than confining the enquiry to the activities and compliance of the immediately preceding three financial years.

Facts

  • Educational Society: The assessee-society runs a CBSE-affiliated school and carries out charitable activities of imparting education under Section 2(15).
  • Prior Registration: The society held registration under clause (ac) of Section 12(1) and approval under Section 80G under the new tax regime for the period covering AY 2022–23 to AY 2026–27.
  • Renewal Application: The assessee filed an application seeking renewal of its registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G.
  • Basis for Rejection: The Principal Commissioner rejected the renewal application on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of its activities.
  • Reliance on Past Search Data: The rejection relied almost entirely on allegations (bogus bills, accommodation entries, unexplained cash) arising from earlier search and seizure proceedings for FY 2014–15 to 2020–21.
  • Unsubstantiated Allegations: The adverse findings were based on retracted statements and third-party search material without independent corroboration or evidence produced in the renewal proceedings.
  • Clean Recent Record: Assessment for the relevant period was completed at Nil income with no adverse reporting, and no deficiencies were found in the materials for FY 2022–23 to 2024–25.

Decision

  • Scope of Enquiry Restricted: Under clause (ac) of Section 12(1) read with Rule 17A, the enquiry for renewal of registration must be strictly confined to examining the genuineness of activities and statutory compliance for the immediately preceding three financial years.
  • Past Material Inadmissible for Renewal: The Principal Commissioner cannot import “specified violation” grounds applicable to cancellation proceedings or rely on search/investigation material relating to periods prior to 01-04-2021.
  • Core Charitable Activity Intact: Running a CBSE-affiliated school is inherently a charitable activity per se, and its genuineness was never in doubt during the relevant three-year period.
  • Order Quashed: The rejection order was set aside, and the Revenue was directed to grant renewal under Section 12AB(1)(b) and approval under Section 80G, deciding the matter in favor of the assessee.

Key Takeaways

  • Three-Year Look-Back Rule for Renewal: Statutory enquiries for renewing tax registration under Section 12AB are limited to examining the financials and activities of the immediately preceding three financial years.
  • Cancellation vs. Renewal Distinction: Grounds or search materials relevant for initiating cancellation of registration cannot be routinely imported into procedural renewal applications under Section 12AB.
  • Uncorroborated Search Material Invalid: Retracted statements and third-party search evidence from old tax years cannot form the sole basis to deny registration renewal when current operational and assessment records are clean.
IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘A’
Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society
v.
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
ANUBHAV SHARMA, Judicial Member
and AMITABH SHUKLA, Accountant Member
IT APPEAL No. 5026 (Delhi) of 2026
JULY  22, 2026
Ms. Daizy Chawla, Aseem Chawla, Vijay Kumar Singh and Deepesh Jain, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Rakhi Vimal, CIT-DR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member.- This appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.03.2026 of the Principle Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Delhi-3 (hereinafter referred as ‘Competent Authority’) against the rejection of Form 10AB and consequent cancellation of registration granted under Section 80G(5) of the Act.
2. Heard and perused the record. The assesse is a society running a school in the name of G.D. Goenka Public School situated at Dwarka, New Delhi and is registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 since, 18.09.1996. This society was registered u/s 12A of the Act on 22.08.1997 and further an approval u/s 80G was granted on 02.06.2008. Subsequently, after introduction of new regime for registration of Trust from 01.4.2021, asssessee was granted registration under clause (ac) of Section 12(1) of the Act for the period 2022-23 to 2026-27 vide order dated 31.08.2021 and approval u/s 80G was also granted for the same period vide order dated 31.03.2021. Subsequently, assesse filed an application dated 19.09.2025 in Form 10AB for renewal of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act and as the jurisdiction over the case of M/s Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society were vested with Central Circle-28, Delhi, which is under the administrative control of the PCIT (Central)-3, Delhi, application of assessee trust in Form-10AB filed on 19.09.2025 for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act was transferred to office of the Principle Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Delhi-3 (hereinafter referred as ‘Competent Authority’)
3. Thereafter assesse was called upon by notice dated 26.12.2025 copy of which is available at Page No. 57-66 to submit necessary documents, evidence and submissions in support of the claim and reply of assesse was filed on 09.01.2026 copy of which is available at page no. 61-74 of the paper book. Thereafter vide the impugned order date 31.03.2026 the application of assesse was rejected by holding that assesse trust failed to establish the genuineness of its activities and compliance with the objects for which registration is sought. In the impugned order ld. Competent authority has reached conclusions that activities of society are not genuine, thus, one of the conditions of Section 12AB (1)(b) for grant of registration is not satisfied. The assesse has challenged the same before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-3, Delhi (the PCIT) has erred in rejecting the renewal of registration under 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income-tax Act (the Act’) of the Appellant Society vide impugned Order dated 31.03.2026, by re-examining the very same material and allegations which stood nullified by the Hon’ble ITAT vide Order dated 22.08.2024 passed in ITA No. 1803/DEL/2024, thereby exceeding jurisdiction vested under the Act.
1.1. The Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate that the Hon’ble ITAT, being a superior Appellate Authority, has set aside the cancellation order dated 31.03.2024 and restored the registration of the Appellant Society, therefore, the findings recorded by the Hon’ble ITAT are binding and could not have been disregarded or circumvented by the Ld. PCIT.
1.2. The impugned order amounts to review of the Order dated 22.08.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal, which is impermissible in law.
1.3. The Ld. PCIT has erred in holding in para 3 of the impugned Order that the Hon’ble Tribunal has set aside the earlier cancellation order 31.03.2024 on technical grounds. The findings of this Hon’ble Tribunal in Order dated 22.08.2024 relate to lack of jurisdictions, retrospective application provisions of Section 12AB (4) of the Act, invocation of provisions of the Act (Section 12AA of the Act) which stood omitted w.e.f 01.04.2021. These findings go to the root of the matter and cannot be termed as technical. Thus, the conclusion of Ld. PCITholding that earlier cancellation order is set aside on technical ground and that the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Appellant Society is perverse, which are not only legally unsustainable but amounts to a discard of judicial discipline.
1.4. That the PCIT (Central) erred on facts and in law in relying on earlier cancellation order dated 31.03.2024 which was based on retracted statements and various inadmissible electronic data/evidence, excel sheets, etc. which cannot constitute valid evidence, inter alia, as per provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (BhartiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023).
2. That the Ld. PCIT, has erred in law by traversing beyond the prescribed look back period of three years under Rule 17A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and relying upon materials, allegations and circumstances pertaining to FY 2014-15 to FY 202021, which falls outside three financial years immediately preceding the financial year in which application is filed.
2.1. The Ld. PCIT, has erred in law in travelling beyond the jurisdiction vested under Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act by relying upon past allegations, alleged specified violations, and issues forming part of the earlier cancellation proceedings, including matters/issues already adjudicated by this Hon’ble Tribunal, which are irrelevant for the purpose of grant/renewal of registration.
2.2. The Ld. PCIT has failed to record any independent satisfaction based on fresh enquiry on the basis of documents furnished along with Form No. 10AB and during the course of proceedings i.e. relating to FY 2022-23, FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 apart from other Information relating to the activities like details of the students, teachers, achievements, etc. The conclusions regarding non genuine, diversion of income, and non-charitable activities are mechanical reiteration of earlier findings recorded in Order dated 31.03.2024 which relates to FY 2014-15 to FY 2020-21. The impugned Order is, therefore, vitiated by non-application of mind. The findings of the Ld. PCIT is unsupported by any evidence and is liable to be set aside.
2.3. The Ld. PCIT has failed to examine whether the activities of the Appellant Society basis the documents submitted along with the Application (Form 10AB) as well as later on are genuine. The conclusion of non-genuineness of the activities of the Appellant Society since AY 2021-22 (FY 2020-21) is based on past allegations (AY 2015-16 to AY 2021-22) without examining the documents, financial statements, Application of Funds, consideration of the responses submitted by the Appellant Society during the grant proceedings, etc.
3. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in recording findings of “specified violations”, diversion of income and non-genuineness of activities, which fall within the scope of cancellation proceedings under Section 12AB (4) of the Act, while consciously proceeding under Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act, thereby converting grant of registration into de facto cancellation proceeding.
3.1. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law in invoking the concept of specified violation under Section 12AB (4) of the Act to the alleged events pertaining to FY 2020-21 (AY 202122), despite the fact that Section 12AB (4) came into force with effect from 01.04.2021 and operates prospectively as held by this Hon’ble Tribunal in Appellant’s own case. Applying substantive provision to a period when such provision was not in existence is impermissible, thereby vitiating the impugned order.
4. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the communication dated 13.03.2026 makes a reference to Meenakshi Foundation (unrelated/no connection with the Appellant Society), to show cause as to why it should not be held that Meenakshi Foundation was engaged in carrying: out non genuine activities which demonstrates lack due care and non-application of mind on part of the Ld. PCIT and no valid Show Cause Notice can be said to have been to the Appellant Society.
5. That the Ld. PCIT, has erred in exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding under Section 12A of the Act, since the jurisdiction to take any action regarding registration under Section 12A of the Act in the present case vests exclusively with Ld. CIT(E), New Delhi.
6. That the PCIT (Central) erred on facts and in law in levelling various false and baseless allegations and drawing adverse inferences, without any corroborating evidence(s) to substantiate the same.
7. That the Ld. PCIT has passed the impugned order in violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as several of the grounds and material relied upon the impugned order was never put to the Appellant Society, thereby denying the Appellant Society meaningful opportunity to meet the same.
The Appellant Society craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
4. The rival contentions were heard and ld. Senior counsel appearing for the assesse has vehemently argued that the manner in which ld. Competent authority has passed the order only reflects the prejudice and preconceived notion to deny the registration on the basis of mere findings of ld. PCIT-3, New Delhi, wherein the registration of assesse was cancelled for AY: 2015-16 to 2021-22 on the basis of alleged specified violations. It was submitted that in fact that order of ld. PCIT-3, New Delhi dated 31.03.2024 was subject matter of challenge before this Tribunal vide Lakhmi ChandCharitable Society v. CIT [ITA No. 1803/Del/2024, dated dated 22-08-2024] the Coordinate Bench had quashed the order dated 31.03.2024. It was contended by ld. Senior Counsel that still keeping in mind the observations in the earlier order the impugned order in hand has been passed for which our attention was drawn to relevant parts of the impugned order of the Coordinate Bench dated 22.08.2024 (supra) where the ld. Competent authority had made the observations as foundation for rejecting the application, by holding that the Tribunal has decided the matter on technical grounds. Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned order in fact results as review of the Tribunal order dated 22.08.2024 (supra).
4.1 It was submitted by ld. Counsel that ld. Competent Authority failed to appreciate that the present proceedings was for grant/renewal of registration for the period FY 2026-27 (AY 2027-28) onwards whereas the earlier proceedings was cancellation of registration for the prior period and for relevant FY to AY 2022-23 to 2026-27, there were no allegations.
4.2 Ld. Counsel contended that the Act creates two distinct, selfcontained codes: (i) Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act which provides the procedure for grant/renewal of registration, where the enquiry is confined to genuineness of activities and compliance with other material laws; and (ii) Section 12AB(4) of the Act which provides the procedure for cancellation, predicated on the occurrence of a specified violation as defined in the Explanation. The Ld. PCIT, while acting under Section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Act, has in fact recorded findings of specified violation and diversion of income”, thereby converting a grant/renewal proceeding into a de facto cancellation proceeding. This is impermissible. The two scopes of enquiry cannot be clubbed.
4.3 It was further submitted that travelling beyond the Prescribed Three-Year look-back period under Rule 17A(2)(g) of Income Tax Rules 1962, is beyond the Jurisdiction conferred by Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act.The Ld. PCIT rejected renewal applications in Form 10AB by relying upon material, allegations and circumstances pertaining to FY 2014-15 to FY 2020-21, brushing aside the three-year limitation prescribed in Rule 17A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. As per the contention so ld. Sr. Counsel, Rule 17A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 confines the documentary enquiry to not being more than three years immediately preceding the year in which the said application is made. The Applications in Form 10AB were filed on 19.09.2025. The relevant years that could be examined were therefore FY 2022-23, FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25. The Ld. PCIT travelled wholly outside the permissible window by founding the rejection exclusively based on documents of FY 2014-15 to FY 2020-21. Ld. Counsel has relied decision in Chandigarh Educational Society v. DCIT [2026]   (Chandigarh – Trib.), to contend that this Tribunal has held that Rule 17A confines the enquiry to three years and that the PCIT had mixed up two proceedings, namely, cancellation of registration vis-a-vis renewal of registration, wherein scope of enquiry is separate in each proceeding. Decision in Shri Guru Ram Dass Education Society v. ACIT/DCIT (2026]  (Chandigarh – Trib.) (Chandigarh – Trib.) was also relied to same effect.
4.4 The attention of Bench was drawn to the notice dated 26.12.2025, to contend that same shows that it calls for information covering the period of preceding three years which also proves that the relevant look back period for grant/renewal of registration is three years. The impugned Order overlooks and fails to take into account the relevant materials/evidence(s) placed by the Appellant for the relevant period sought by the Ld. PCIT. The impugned Order suffers from non-consideration of relevant material for the relevant period on record, rendering it unsustainable in Law. The impugned Order had elaborately discussed the material which was the subject matter of cancellation proceedings and beyond the period relevant for present proceedings of renewal/grant.
5. On the contrary, ld. DR heavily relied the impugned order and submitted that as with regard to order of Coordinate Bench decision dated 22.08.2024 the department is in appeal and the appeal has been admitted by framing substantial question of law. It was further submitted that the findings of Coordinate Bench order dated 22.08.2024 did not have any binding effect on the competent authority when the application is being considered afresh. Ld. CIT(A) DR submitted that the financials of the assesse for 3 years are examined only for limited purpose but otherwise to examine the genuineness of activities all the past financials and conduct of the activities of an applicant can be examined and therefore, the conclusion drawn by ld. Competent authority on the basis of facts as surfaced in the investigation, rightly indicate that ld. Competent authority has taken into account the merits to decline the application.
5.1. On behalf of the department ld. DR has also filed written submissions wherein it is submitted that the contention raised by the Appellant that the after insertion of clause (ac), the registration of society was renewed vide order dt. 31.08.2021 holds no ground as such renewal was only granted prior to completion of assessment proceedings u/s 153A in consequence of the search and seizure action, and therefore, the material evidencing the violations elaborated in impugned order were not before the competent authority at the time of grant such renewal. Then the submissions have been made on the merits of the allegations on the basis of search and investigation wing. Ld. DR has also relied decisions in Chandigarh Educational Society (supra)& Shri Guru Ram Dass Educational Society(supra) the same have also been taken into consideration.
6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record and the foremost thing that has to be taken into consideration is that it is a case of examining the eligibility of applicant assesse within the scope of Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act. There is no doubt to proposition that scope of enquiry at the stage of grant/renewal of registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act is statutorily confined to two questions only:
(a) whether the activities of the trust/institution are genuine; and
(b) whether it has complied with the requirements of any other law material for achieving its objects.
6.1 In Pista Devi Education Society v. CIT(Exemptions),  (Delhi – Trib.), Co-ordinate bench has reiterated the settled proposition of law that at the stage of registration, the competent authority is required to confine its enquiry to the charitable objects of the Society and genuineness of its activities and not to the application or alleged misapplication of income, which is a matter to be examined by the Assessing Officer during the Assessment Proceedings.
7. Thus ld. Competent authority was required to record satisfaction with regard to first the genuineness of activities of the applicant and secondly, that there is compliance of such requirement of any other law for the time being enforced, by the applicant. Now, admittedly it was only with regard to the first clause which required satisfaction of ld. Competent authority that the activities of the trust were genuine, was an issue decided against the assesse.
8. Coming to the enquiry made by ld. Competent Authority this issue, as we consider notice dated 26/12/2025, we find that by query 2(iii) assesse was called upon to submit note on activities conducted since inception/during the last 3 years and till 31.03.2025. Further, by clause (xvii) assesse was directed to provide details of bank account maintained by the assesse during the last 3 years and till 31.03.2025. Then by clause (xviii) assesse was asked to provide details for the last 3 years till 31.03.2025 copies of ITRs filed for the last 3 years and Form 26AS were desired by clause (xix). Details of remuneration/reimbursement if any drawn by the trustee etc. against the services provided by them to the trust were called by query No. (xx). Then, most importantly by clause (xxv)assessee was called to provide details of activities undertaken and to furnish the documentary evidences such bills, vouchers, photographs, list of beneficiaries etc. to substantiate the charitable activities carried out by assesse in past 3 years and till 31.03.2025. In this clause 25 it was specifically mentioned that in the absence of such sufficient evidence it will be held that assesse has not carried out any charitable activities.
9. We then find that assesse has responded to this notice and provided all relevant evidences to satisfy the queries. The copy of this reply dated 09.01.2026 available at page No. 61-74 gives illustrative response to the queries along with all the evidences.
10. As we go through the impugned order which is indeed a long document running in 143 pages, we find that from para 6 onwards ld. Competent authority has taken up discussion of issues and throughout the discussion which subsequently runs up to page 142 there is only reproduction of findings arrived as an outcome of search and seizure proceedings u/s 142 of the Act carried out on 14.10.2020 in the case of Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, his close associates and few transacting parties with whom Shri Manoj Kumar Singh had entered into various transactions. There is absolutely no discussion of any material submissions and evidences filed by the assesse in response to the queries raised by the ld. Competent authority vide notice dated 26.12.2025. It is crystal clear from the impugned order that none of the evidences and submissions of the assesse to the queries raised have been doubted or any material deficiency noticed to allege that the activities are not genuine. But, material alien to the queries has been relied to hold that the activities of the assesse are not -genuine.
11. On the contrary, the admitted state of affairs is that assesse is running one of the most prominent school affiliated to CBSE having strength of over 3000 students. Very apparently, the allegations pertainto period up to financial year 2020-21 and which too is not independently examined and merely relying allegation of search and investigation the observation are recorded and have been made basis to reach a conclusion that activities of assesse are not genuine. The adverse conclusions in the impugned Order pertaining to booking of bogus bills, commission income from campus shops, unexplained cash, accommodation entries and disguised corpus donations are based entirely on retracted statements and third-party search material gathered in proceedings pertaining to FY 201415 to FY 2020-21. None of this material has been independently established, in the current proceeding, by any cogent or corroborating evidence. The genuineness of the core activity of the Appellant in imparting education as per Section 2(15) of the Act being charitable activity per se by running a CBSE affiliated school was never in doubt and stands affirmatively demonstrated by the documents on record. The Ld. PCIT has not brought a single piece of evidence to show that, during the relevant period, the Appellant ceased to impart education or pursued any non-charitable object.
12. Examining the issue from perspective of ld. Competent Authority, as to if at all the material confronted by notice dated 13/03/2026, could have been made to reject the application, what is important is that Rule 17A which provides for the list of document to accompany Form 10AB and list vide clause (g) requires as follows:
“(g) where the applicant has been in existence during any year or years prior to the financial year in which the application for registration is made, self-certified copies of the annual accounts of the applicant relating to such prior year or years (not being more than three years immediately preceding the year in which the said application is made) for which such accounts have been made up;”
12.1 It appears that based on the aforesaid provision of clause (g) only at the time of issuance of notice dated 26.12.2025, ld. Competent authority had called for financials and other information relevant to 3 previous years and as observed earlier nothing was found deficient or incriminating, from the information, submission and evidences filed by assessee to reject the application but then recourse was taken to issue notice dated 13.03.2026 by citing specified violation which were found in impugned order dated 31.03.2024, which in fact was quashed by this Tribunal.
13. Further, taking note of provisions of the Act as coming effect from 01.04.2021, wherein the procedure for ‘fresh registration’ was introduced by way of Section 12AB, we find that as with regard to entities holding registration u/s 12A the newly introduced Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) required entities like assesse holding 12A registration to apply for registration within 3 months from 1st April, 2021 and such entities were then entitled for grant of registration for period of 5 years as per clause 12AB(1)(c). Thereafter, as per Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) the entities were required to seek renewal of the registration granted u/s 12AB and thereupon provisions of Section 12AB(1)(b) come into effect and vests powers with a competent authority to call for such document or information from the trust or applicant entity or independently make such inquiries as competent authority thinks necessary in order to satisfy about the genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution and the compliance of such requirement of any other law for the time being enforce by the trust or institution as the material for the purpose of achieve its object. Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) then lays down that after satisfying himself about the object of the trust or institution and the genuineness of the activities and compliance of requirement as per clause (A)(B) of Section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Act the competent authority can pass order in writing registry that trust or institution for a period of 5 years.
14. Thus, this procedure for fresh registration and renewal had ended the regime of perpetual registration and introduced the system of registration and approval for a limited period of 5 years. This scheme when read in conjunction with Rule 17A(g) makes it a complete code in itself wherein the mandate of law is to restrict the inquiry while granting renewal to the period under which assesse or any similar entity had held registration u/s 12AB(1)(a) provisionally for 5 years.
15. When the concept of perpetual registration has been given away in this new regime for periodic renewal the intention is certainly to examine the activities of the assesse in the previous period for which the assesse has held registration under the new regime and objective application of changes brought in the Act and prudence too do not justify that the financials or activities of period beyond 01.04.2021 can be subject of inquiry to reject the application of renewal of registration. If this plea of department is accepted it will dilute the intention of legislature which seem to bring in more check and balance by introduction of new regime. Thus, where assesse had already enjoyed registration under the new regime w.e.f AY: 2022-23 to AY: 2026-27 and was seeking renewal for the purpose of clause (ac) of Section 12(1) of the Act then the scheme of law and the intention of legislature seems to be to examine the financials and activities of the assesse for immediately 3 preceding years only. It only suggests that while seeking renewal of the registration the competent authority cannot go beyond immediately preceding three years to even call for information.
16. At the same time it is important to note that while framing the assessment order for FY: 2021-22 i.e. relevant to AY: 2022-23, the copy of which is made available at page 33-34 of the PB, shows that the AO has not given any adverse findings. The assessing officer mentions that after verification of the details furnished by the assessee and the material available on record for AY 2022-23, total income of assessee is assessed at Nil amount. Further the order dated 29.03.2024, specially mentions that assessment order is passed with prior approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7, New Delhi. The Assessing Officer, has not reported any specified violations or any violation of terms of registration in the Assessment Proceedings for AY 2022-23 (FY 2021-22) and does not record any adverse findings regarding genuineness of the activities of the Appellant or any violation of provisions of any material law. Further, as observed earlier, the Ld. PCIT has also not recorded any adverse findings for the relevant period. Therefore, in the absence of any adverse findings in the Assessment Proceedings for FY 2021-22 and in the impugned order for relevant period, it is erroneous to allege that activities of assessee are not genuine.
17. Here it is pertinent to note that in the show cause communication dated 13.03.2026, by which the search and investigation findings of period prior to 01.04.2021 were confronted to assessee, a reference is actually made about violations of some “Meenakshi Foundation”, an entity wholly unconnected with the Appellant, demonstrating non-application of mind, but ritualistic measures taken to reach a preconceived notion on the basis of search and investigation wing findings, which were subject to challenge before Tribunal and order of cancelation of registration with retrospective effect was quashed. This also shows that when in response to the notice raising queries assessee had filed all the responses and evidences, as called for, then without showing any alleged act, leading to conclusion that activities of assessee are not genuine, on the basis of response and evidences submitted by assessee by reply dated 09.01.2026, this show cause notice dated 13.03.2026 was issued and impugned order was passed on 31.03.2026, which had no legs to stand, legally or factually, on its own.
18. In the light of aforesaid discussion we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Ground raised deserve to be sustained. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assesse and as a consequence of aforesaid conclusion drawn by us, we direct the Ld. Competent authority to grant registration to the assessee by allowing form 10AB application and consequently grant approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act in a period of 4 weeks from the receipt of the order.