RAB DE JEEV,RUPNAGAR vs. CIT, CHANDIGARH

This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of the Ld. CIT Exemptions, Chanidgarh Delhi dt. 16/12/2025.

In the present appeal Appellant has raised following grounds: Ground No. 1: Invalid rejection contrary to law and facts That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the charitable nature of objects and genuine activities carried on by the appellant trust. The rejection is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to settled legal principles governing grant of registration u/s 12AB. Ground No. 2: Failure to appreciate charitable object of animal welfare That the Learned CIT (Exemptions) has failed to appreciate that the appellant trust is engaged exclusively in animal welfare activities, which squarely falls under the definition of “charitable purpose” as per section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the category of: “advancement of any other object of general public utility.” The trust is engaged in:  Rescue and shelter of injured and abandoned animals  Providing food, shelter, and medical treatment  Sterilization and vaccination drives  Operating shelters in Mohali, Kharar and Naya Gaon These activities clearly demonstrate genuine charitable purpose. Ground No. 3: Failure to properly appreciate documentary evidence submitted That the Learned CIT (Exemptions) erred in holding that charitable activities were not established despite submission of:  Bank statements  Bills and supporting documents  Veterinary prescriptions  Photographs  Social media records  Details of animal shelters and operations The conclusion drawn is arbitrary and based on incomplete appreciation of material on record. Ground No. 4: Incorrect conclusion regarding genuineness of activities That the Learned CIT (Exemptions) has erred in concluding that activities are not genuine merely on the basis of technical objections relating to:  Cash withdrawals  Bills without GST number  Estimates and prescriptions Without appreciating the practical realities of animal welfare activities, where:  Many small vendors supplying food and fodder do not issue GST invoices  Emergency veterinary expenses and feeding activities require immediate cash usage  Activities are carried out continuously and not always formally documented These practical realities do not negate genuineness of charitable work. Ground No. 5: Failure to conduct independent inquiry or physical verification That the Learned CIT (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application without conducting any independent verification or physical inspection of the appellant’s animal shelters and operational locations. The appellant respectfully submits that:  The trust operates physical animal shelters at Mohali, Kharar, and Naya Gaon.  The activities are openly carried out and are verifiable.  The Hon’ble authorities could have conducted field verification to ascertain genuineness.

At the outset the grounds of appeal are not concised, are repetitive and argumentative in nature. However considering the nature of activities of the appellant and other facts and circumstances of the case, this irregularity is ignored in the interest of justice and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. The appellant had applied for Registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act in Form 10AB. 6. During the course of proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) a cash withdrawal of Rs. 4,50,000/- was noticed on 03/08/2024. The Ld. CIT(E) held in para 3.5 to 3.8 of the order under appeal that the appellant could produce bills totaling Rs. 35,900/- only and the payments were made in cash. He also observed that the bills are without GST Number and some bills are estimates only. He further observed that even small vendors are now accepting through digital mode and therefore the payments of cash after withdrawal of Rs. 4,50,000/- cannot be accepted to be genuine expenditure towards the objects of the trust. 7. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal Ms. Meenakshi Gautam, President personally attended and explained that the appellant is engaged in the following activities:

The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and vehemently argued that the appellant has failed to establish that the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- was utilized towards the object of the trust.

The contentions of both the parties have been examined. At the outset the issue involved here is the Registration of the trust in respect of application filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). If the object of the trust meet the test laid down for Registration of the Trust as per the statute an isolated activity in a particular year cannot lead to denial of Registration, though it can be used for denial of exemption for that particular year to the extent permissible as per the statute.

However, and without prejudice to the above in the present case the Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate the practical realities in the field of activities in

The law ensures that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in a form that is considered legal tender that person cannot sue you for failing to repay. In this background let us first examine the section 26 to 28 of The RBI Act of 1934. It reads as under: ”26. Legal tender character of notes.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), every bank note shall be legal tender at any place in 1India in payment, or on account for the amount expressed therein, and shall be guaranteed by the Central Government. (2) On recommendation of the Central Board the Central Government may, by notification in the Gazette of India, declare that, with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, any series of bank notes of any denomination shall cease to be legal tender 6save at such office or agency of the Bank and to such extent as may be specified in the notification. 26A. Certain bank notes to cease to be legal tender.—Notwithstanding anything contained in section 26, no bank note of the denominational value of five hundred rupees, one thousand rupees or ten thousand rupees issued before the 13th day of January, 1946, shall be legal tender in payment or on account for the amount expressed therein. 27. Re-issue notes.—The Bank shall not re-issue bank notes which are torn, defaced or excessively spoiled. 28. Recovery of notes lost, stolen, mutilated or imperfect.Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment or rule of law to the contrary, no person shall of right be entitled to recover from the Central Government or the Bank, the value of any lost, stolen, mutilated or imperfect currency note of the Government of India or bank note: Provided that the Bank may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, prescribed the circumstances in and the conditions and limitations subject to which the value of such currency notes or bank notes may be refunded as of grace and the rules made under this proviso shall be laid on the table of 6 Parliament.” 12. Therefore, the use of legal tender issued by the RBI can not be restricted by any functionary of the Government, unless there is a specific provision in statute like section 269SS, 269T, 269ST etc of the Income Tax Act 1961. To state that an expenditure is non genuine for the sole reason that it

Therefore, the Ld. CIT(E) is directed to grant registration to the assessee under section 12AB of the Act.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.