MANDIR MURTI LUXMI NARAYAN,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

That the Ld. Commissioner failed to appreciate that the Appellant is a public religious-cum charitable trust in existence since 1930 (oral trust later formalized by Trust Deeds) engaged in advancement of religion and other charitable objects, which squarely falls within the definition of charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner erred in ignoring the voluminous documentary evidence submitted by the Appellant in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 31.12.2025 INCLUDING Trust Deeds and historical documents establishing existence since 1930 Registration order dated 17.03.2022 granted after due scrutiny by CPC, Detailed note on activities for FY 2022-23 to 2024-25 along with photographs, bills/invoices, audited financial statements showing application of income, Complete land records (khatauni, intekal, purchase receipts, merged land detail sheets) proving ownership of temple properties, Document evidencing transfer of land of 33 acres for the purpose of promoting education to Global Education Charitable Trust for educational objects. The finding of nongenuineness is perverse and contrary to the material on record. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner wrongly observed that payments for school management software (Wingding Wonders Pvt. Ltd.) and other expenses do not constitute charitable activities. The software so developed and maintained is being used by many schools without any charges specifically for educational use and purpose. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner erred in treating related-party transactions as suspicious without appreciating that services were actually provided and without having complete enquiry into the facts of the case and just based on assumptions. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner misdirected herself in placing undue emphasis on alleged discrepancies in Income Tax Returns and Form 9A/10B schedules. 8. That the Ld. Commissioner erred in doubting the source and nature of land valued at approx. Rs100 crore appearing in the balance sheet. 9. That the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The Show Cause Notice was general in nature the Appellant was not confronted with specific adverse findings (ITR discrepancies, related-party transactions, etc.) before passing the rejection order. The observation that reply does not satisfactorily explain is a bald statement without dealing with the detailed submissions and documents filed by the Appellant. 10. That the cancellation of existing registration granted on 17.03.2022 is highly disproportionate, harsh and without any cogent reason. Once registration is granted after due verification, it cannot be cancelled lightly unless there is conclusive evidence of fraud or complete cessation of activities - neither of which exists in the present case. The Trust continues to carry on religious and charitable activities uninterruptedly. 11. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any of the above grounds or to raise additional grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

The present appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application for Registration under section 12(A)(1)(ac)(ii) is mainly against the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) for rejecting the claim on the ground mentioned in para 5 of the order of the Ld. CIT(E) which is reproduced hereunder: 5. In view of the foregoing, the following observations are relevant: (a) that the trust owns land worth 100 crores but sources of acquisition of the said land and its current usage is not known. The trust has not offered any income from the land in returns of income. In the present circumstances, it is not possible that land worth Rs. 100 crores is lying unutilised. Therefore, in all likelihood, income from the land is not being disclosed by the trust in return of income. Further, there does not appear to be any justification for investment in DLF plot. (b) The trust has made huge payments to various concerns related to its Auditor, Ms Rekha K Mittal, her spouse and Anmol Jindal, member of the trust. Payments have been made for rent, contractual payments and fee for professional services to same concerns which don’t seem to be genuine. (c) The trust has been manipulating figures relating to accumulation and application of income during various years. (d) There are no traces of online school or any other educational activity as per records. Further, providing software for school does not amount to education as envisaged u/s 2(15) of the Act and elaborated by various courts in this regard. (e) Income of the trust has been invested for acquisition of assets which appear to be for personal consumption of the members and not for charity.

The first reason for rejecting the claim of the appellant is that the appellant owns a land worth Rs. 100 Crores and it not possible that the land is lying unutilized and in all likelihood the income from the land is not being disclosed. 6. This observation of the Ld. CIT(E) is only a presumption, moreover on page 6 of the order of the Ld. CIT(E) the reply of the appellant has been reproduced which mentions that it was a inherited property from pre independent time and since the original value is not known, the fair market value has been entered in the books of account. It is further stated that this temple was established in 1930 and the family properly was inherited by the Trust. It is apparent that the Ld. CIT(E) has failed to appreciate totality of circumstances. The other reason