SHRI RAMAN SUJATI SEWA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was granted regular registration under section 12AB vide order dated

According to the learned CIT(E), despite the specific opportunity afforded, the assessee failed to furnish the earlier registration certificate or other requisite documents. The learned CIT(E) further observed that, in the absence of proof of registration under the pre-amended regime, the validity of the registration granted in Form No. 10AC dated 11.03.2022 itself could not be established. It was also noticed that the trust deed did not contain appropriate clauses regarding irrevocability of the trust and application of the trust assets upon dissolution. On the aforesaid reasoning, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application for renewal under section 12AB. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(E) have been extracted in the impugned order and need not be reproduced again for the sake of brevity.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee was unable to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the documents specifically called for by the learned CIT(E.). It was, however, submitted that the omission was inadvertent and that the assessee may be afforded one final opportunity to place on record the requisite documents. Learned counsel further stated that the assessee is willing to bear costs quantified by the Tribunal at ₹2,500.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The impugned order reveals that the application has been rejected primarily on account of non-production of the documents considered necessary by the learned CIT(E) for examining the assessee's eligibility for renewal of registration. Since the matter has not been examined on the basis of complete material, and having regard to the fact that refusal of registration has civil consequences for the assessee, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately served by affording the assessee one final opportunity to place the requisite material before the learned CIT(E.).

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E.) for fresh adjudication. The assessee shall, within the time stipulated by the learned CIT(E.), furnish all the documents called for, including (i) the registration certificate, if any, granted under

This opportunity is, however, granted subject to payment of costs of ₹2,500, which the assessee shall deposit in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within one month from the date of receipt of this order and shall furnish proof of such payment before the learned CIT(E.). The learned CIT(E.) shall verify compliance with this direction before proceeding to decide the application afresh in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is made clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee's claim, and all issues are left open for consideration by the learned CIT(E.).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.