SHRI VISHWAVATI AYURVEDIC CHIKISALAY V RESEARCH CENTRE,KOLHAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION). PUNE, PUNE

In the absence of appellant, after considering the order-sheet entries and recording no objection of Ld. DR, we thought fit to proceed to dispose of these matters ex-parte on merits u/r 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Since the facts of these appeals are similar, related and interconnected, ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4

Briefly stated the facts borne out of these case records are; the appellant is a public trust established by group of doctors predominantly established for Ayurvedic medical care & relief and registered itself as Public Charitable Trust under the BPT Act, 1950. The assessee was accorded a provisional registration u/s 12A & 80G of the Act, pursuant to which has e-filed its application in Form No 10AB on 29/09/2022 seeking grant of regular registration u/s 12AB under the category of charitable trust / institution and further Form 10AB on 30/09/2022 for recognition u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) in-order to verify the objects, activities and to ascertain the fulfilment of conditions for granting registration u/s 12AB and recognition u/s 80G of the Act, was put the appellant trust to notices from time to time, which were remained to be effectively replied by the assessee.

In so far as the application for 12AB is concerned, for the want of evidences in support of activities purported to be engaged by the assessee trust, putting the assessee to show-case notice, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the said application and cancelled the provisional registration granted to it u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. Consequent to the aforestated denial to grant regular registration u/s 12AB of the Act, as a corollary the application of the appellant trust seeking regular registration for 80G is also rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) by an impugned order of even date.

Aggrieved by the aforestated rejections and cancellation of provisional registration, the appellant trust set-up the present appeals alleging the action of Ld. CIT(E) as violative of principle of audi alteram partem.

We have heard Ld. DR; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of ITAT Rules, perused the material placed on record which suggest that, the preliminary submission of the appellant trust did failed to give plausible response to various queries raised by the registering authority and also failed to substantiate its activities with cogent evidences so has to draw a reasonable conclusion about the genuineness of the activities of the appellant, as a consequence the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications in violation of principle of natural justice as commanded by sub-clause (B) of section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and by clause (ii)(b)(B) of 2nd proviso to 80G(5) of the Act r.w. proviso to rule 11AA(5) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

In our considered view, the action of the Ld. CIT(E) suffered from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to refute the rejection vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought. It shall be worthy to underlined that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine of natural justice is a facet of fair play in action and no person shall be saddled with a liability without being heard. In the light of decision of High court of Patna in ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Trust (2003) 262 ITR 377 (Pat)’ we hold that, rejection of application is unjustified ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4

In the light of aforestated discussion, without commenting on the merits of these cases, we deem it fit to remand these matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for according three effective opportunities to the assessee trust to comply with the directions or the requirements vis-à-vis to refute the reasons of rejection as the case may be and to pass the speaking order with point of determination, decision thereon and the reasons therefore.

Resultantly, both these appeals of the appellant assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Wednesday, 02nd day of August, 2023.