ASPECT FOUNDATION,JIND vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appellant filed an application for renewal of provisional registration before Ld. CIT(E) in Form No. 10AB seeking for permanent registration on 28/09/2024 and also filed application for exemption u/s 80G of the Act . The Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 20/03/2025, rejected the application filed by the Appellant. Consequently also rejected the application for grant of exemption u/s 80G of the Act vide orders dated 20/03/2025. Aggrieved by the above orders of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee preferred the captioned Appeals.

The Ld. Counsel or the Appellant submitted that the Ld.CIT(E) committed grave error in rejecting the applications of the appellant on frivolous grounds which are either not relevant or contrary to the material available on record. The Ld. Assessee's Representative has taken us through each and every reasonsmentioned by the Ld. CIT(E) Aspect Foundation Vs. CIT(E) while rejecting the applications and made elaborate submission on those reasoning and submitted that appellant has complied with all the requirements for grant of permanentregistration u/s 12AB of the Act and the reasons cited by the Ld. CIT(E) are either factually incorrect, legally untenable or based on mere conjecture. Thus, sought for direction to the Ld. CIT(E) for grant of permanent registration u/s 12AB of the Act.

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the appellant has purchased the land, however, the purpose for which the land was purchased is still not clear as the appellant emphasizingover the use of land on any objects of the appellant. 7. The first reason assigned by the Ld. CIT(E) is that ‘the Assessee has stated in its reply that it has not commenced its activities. However, it is seen from the financials for F.Y.2021-22, that the Assessee has incurred expenses on medical relief, preservation of environment and general public utility. Therefore, Assessee has furnished contradictory explanations’. 8. The Appellant has incurred various expenses in the Financial Year 2021-22 relevant to Assessment Year 2021-22 and 2022-23. In both the said Assessment Years, the Appellant has not claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act.Appellant applied for registration for the first time u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act on 21/05/ 2022. The Appellant produced the financial statements of both the financial years along with the application to Ld. CIT(E). It is the specific case of the Appellant that the Appellant did not conduct any charitable activities after receiving provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act. During the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) the appellant has correctly stated that it had not commenced activities during the provisional registration period. Therefore, the above observation/ reason assigned by the Ld. CIT(E) is contrary to the facts. 9. The second reason assigned by the Ld. CIT(E) is that the Appellant had not filed any supporting evidences in respect of the charitable expenses incurred during Financial Year 2021-22. Aspect Foundation Vs. CIT(E)

It is the specific case of the Appellant that, theAppellant was unable to obtain documentary evidences with respect to the charitable expenses incurred during the FY.2021-22, when the proceedings before Ld. CIT(E) was under progress, the Appellant in its submission, expressed its inability to produce the details relating to medical relief, protection of environment and other general public expenses and sought for further time to provide the details. Apart from the same, as observed earlier,the Appellant has not claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act for A.Y.2022-23 (F.Y.2021-22) and the application seeking permanent registration was filed for A.Y.2026-27 onwards. In the above peculiar circumstances, non-furnishing of details of expenses incurred in F.Y.2021-22 relevant to A.Y. 2022-23 should not have been viewed adversely by the Ld. CIT(E).

The third reason assigned by the Ld. CIT(E) is that the Appellant is a registered as a company u/s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, in the State of Haryana. However, the Assessee has purchased a land for Rupees Five Crores in Mumbai, State of Maharashtra. Further also observed that the Appellant has not given proper reason for purchasing land in Mumbai and provided reasons which are contrary in nature. 13. The transactions entered with sister concerns of the Assessee are tabulated at pages 12 and 13 of the Order. The Appellant has received donations from M/s Aspect Infrastructure Construction P Ltd. and another related concern, M/s Aspect Bullion Refinery Ltd had incurred certain small expenses on behalf of the Assessee aggregating to Rs.42,116/- and the Assessee has reimbursed the same. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. CIT(E) has not brought any material to show that the expenses reimbursed by the Assesseeaggregating to Rs. 42,116/- are not genuine expenses. In any case, there is no illegality in the transactions of receipt of donations from and reimbursement of expenses to the related concerns. Hence, there was no credible reason available with Ld. CIT(E) to doubt those transactions so as to deny permanent registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. 17. In the result, Appeals in ITA Nos. 1756/Del/2025 and 1757/Del/2025 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th June , 2025 (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 04.06.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S*