AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee. In ITA No.5873/Del/2026 the assessee filed an application dated 26.09.2025 in Form 10AB for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), which was rejected vide order dated 16.03.2026. This particular application has been rejected on the basis of a short finding contained in the impugned order to the extent that the requisite details required as per notices sent by the office of CIT(E) for filing necessary details, were not fully complied with.
In ITA No.5874/Del/2026, apparently similar proceedings are seen whereby the assessee filed an application dated 26.09.2025 in Form 10AB for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, which was rejected after a detailed order dated 22.03.2026. The reason for rejecting the application was that ostensibly the assessee failed to justify his activities within the purview of Section 2(15) of the Act. Briefly, the assessee promotes the Electro Homeopathy System by running professional courses for the same, which culminate in the degrees of BEMS and MDE. It is the contention of Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee is barred from conducting such courses as Electro Homeopathy is allegedly not recognized as a system of medicine. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(E) has given a finding that the assessee is running the said un-approved courses and is charging money for the same also. There is an allegation that the assessee’s activities are entirely commercial in nature and not covered under any of the limbs of Section 2(15) of the Act.
The assessee has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(E) in both the appeals, whereby in ITA 5873/Del/2026 it is mainly on account of denial of opportunity and the ground that the Ld. CIT(E) has not considered the documents filed. On the other hand, in ITA 5874/Del/2026 the main challenge is on the findings given in the body of the impugned order that Electro Homeopathy is not a system of medicine and the assessee cannot legally grant the degrees of BEMS and MDE. It is also averred that while granting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act the Ld. CIT(E) has to look into the basic charitable objects only and not conduct a full-fledged enquiry and any investigation as would be done by an Assessing Officer seized with scrutiny proceedings.
The Ld. AR argued with the help of a paper book and pointed out various circulars and orders from both the Central Government and the State Government to canvass the point that the activities conducted by them were genuine and they are imparting education, which is one of the limbs of Section 2(15) of the Act. The Ld. AR took us through various orders from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Government of Delhi to prove that there was nothing illegal about the activities of the assessee. It was also a prayer that while sufficient opportunity was not provided by the Ld. CIT(E) in both the matters, but even when documents have been filed by the assessee then also the same have not been considered fairly by the Ld. CIT(E).
The ld. DR took us through the impugned orders and stated that in ITA No.5873/Del/2026 the assessee has not made full compliance as required and in ITA 5874/Del/2026 the Ld. CIT(E) has given a detailed finding showing that the assessee was carrying out commercial activities only and there was no charitable intention behind the work being done.
We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that in ITA 5873/Del/2026 the assessee deserves another chance to present the facts of the case and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication as per law.
Regarding ITA 5874/Del/2026 it is visible that there may be a doubt as to whether Electro Homeopathy is a recognized system of medicine or not. However, prima facie, it appears that the assessee is imparting education like any other degree college or medical college and obviously charging a fees for the courses being run by it. It is felt that the Ld. CIT(E) has not considered the orders of the Central Government and the State Government in a holistic manner so that the case of the assessee could be tested on the parameters laid down for considering whether a trust is carrying out educational activities or not, as envisaged u/s 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, in this appeal also, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. We may emphasize that the Ld. CIT(E) needs to be confined to the provisions of Section 2(15) of the act and also the aims and objects of the assessee trust to verify if the activities are in line with the same or not. The assessee would make a comprehensive presentation of facts so that the nature and extent of activities is evident so as to enable the Ld. CIT(E) to come to an appropriate conclusion.
In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, having been remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E).