JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK TIRTH,,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee trust directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune dated 29.09.2017 passed u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) denying the grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a trust and made an application in Form 10A before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 31.03.2017. On receipt of the said application, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) called for certain information on 30.05.2017. After perusing the information filed and Form 10A, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 2 (Exemptions) rejected the grant of registration primarily on two grounds i.e. (1) the appellant society had failed to get amended trust deed registered with the Charity Commissioner and (2) the objects of the trust are partly religious in nature and the absence of Dissolution Clause in trust deed. 3. Being aggrieved by the above action of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), the appellant is before us in the present appeal praying that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ought to have granted the registration u/s 12AA of the Act. 4. Before us, when the appeal was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant society despite due service of notice. 5. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR placed heavily reliance on the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). 6. We heard the ld. CIT-DR and perused the impugned order. On mere reading of the impugned order, we find that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) had called upon the appellant to amend the trust deed to incorporate the Dissolution Clause, an opportunity to comply with direction was given on 11.09.2017 and the impugned order was passed on 29.09.2017. In our considered opinion, the time granted to the appellant society to comply with as the direction of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) may not be sufficient and reasonable having regard to the nature of compliance. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant society.