GURU ARJUN SAMAJIK PRATISHTHAN,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT Exemption has acted in breach of principles of natural justice by rejecting the application without adequately considering the reply dated 05112025 and notarized trust deed submitted, concluding non-genuineness despite opportunities utilized. As held in Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC), non-consideration of evidence vitiates the order. The rejection deserves to be set aside for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity. 2. The learned CIT Exemption has acted in breach of Section 12AB(1)(b)(i) by rejecting for generic activity notes without specific inquiry into beneficiaries or execution, despite multiple notices and responses, failing to verify genuineness fairly. As per PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), conclusions without cogent material are unsustainable. The rejection deserves to be set aside for fresh adjudication. 3. The learned CIT Exemption has erred in rejecting the application under Rule 17A(2) for lack of Charity Commissioner authenticated trust deed, ignoring the submitted notarized copy which suffices for verification of charitable objects and genuineness. As held in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), burden shifts after prima facie discharge. The rejection deserves to be deleted and registration granted.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on receipt of the assessee’s application filed in Form No. 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act along with annexures thereto, with a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force, the Ld. CIT(E) issued notice on 24.07.2025 through ITBA portal which was duly served on the assessee requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification contained therein by 08.08.2025. On verification of the details filed by the assessee in response to the said notice, the Ld. CIT(E) observed various discrepancies which were communicated to the assessee vide issue of another notice/show cause notice dated 19.09.2025 seeking compliance by 26.09.2025. Subsequent notice was issued on 28.10.2025 with due date of filing response by 06.11.2025. The said discrepancies pointed out by the Ld. CIT(E) are reproduced below : “4. "(i) It is seen that the copy of trust deed is not an authenticated copy from the Charity Commissioner. As per the provisions of Rule 17A(2)(a) / 17A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the application in Form No. 10AB shall be accompanied by the trust deed / MoA. However, you have failed to furnish the same since the copy submitted by you is not authentic copy. In absence of an authentic copy of trust deed / MoA, the charitable nature of objects of the trust / institution cannot be verified and whether the activities are in line with the objects of the trust /institution can also not be ascertained. (ii) Please furnish an authentic copy of registration certificate from the Charity Commissioner. (iii) The note on activities submitted by you is very general in nature. Further you have not given any specific details of what actual activities were carried out, who were the beneficiaries, where the activity was carried out. As per the provisions of Rule 17A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the application in Form No.10AB shall be accompanied by note on activities giving details of activities actually carried out but you have failed to comply with those provisions. You ought to have been submit the details of actual activities carried out in the last 3 years. (iv) It is observed that you have been receiving foreign contribution however, you have not submitted copy of specific commitment letters /MOAS/ MOUS from the donor indicating the amount of foreign contribution and the purpose for which it is was supposed to be utilized. Kindly furnish the same."

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a long-standing charitable society/trust, duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Reg. No. Maha/356/2000/Ahmednagar) and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Reg. No. F-5862, Ahmednagar), engaged in educational, medical, relief of the poor and other charitable activities as per its trust deed. The assessee had obtained provisional registration u/s 12AB on 22.10.2022 and, in due course, filed Form No. 10AB on 13.05.2025 under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) for regular registration. During the proceedings, the assessee filed a detailed reply dated 05.11.2025 and submitted a notarized copy of the original Marathi trust deed along with other materials. Nonetheless, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application citing (i) absence of a trust deed "authenticated" by the Charity Commissioner, (ii) submission of a "general" note on activities, and also cancelled the provisional registration.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E).

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application for registration u/s 12A of the Act and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier mainly for the reason that the assessee could not submit copy of the trust deed authenticated by the Charity Commissioner. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice dated 28.10.2025 alleged that: (i) the trust deed furnished was not "authenticated" by the Charity Commissioner, (ii) an "authentic" registration certificate from the Charity Commissioner was not submitted; (iii) the note on activities was general and lacked specific details and evidence; and (iv) commitment letters/MoUs for foreign contribution were not produced. On 05.11.2025, the assessee filed its reply enclosing, inter alia, a copy of the original Marathi trust deed / Memorandum and Rules, registration certificates and other documents (page 19-50 of the paper book refers). The Ld. AR therefore contended that the foundational constitutional document of the trust along with evidence of statutory registrations was very much available on record before the Ld. CIT(E). A duly notarized copy of the actual registered deed is sufficient to show the object and existence of the trust. Still the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application for regular registration and also cancelled the provisions registration observing that due to non-filing of an authenticated copy of the trust deed, he could not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion regarding genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws. The Ld. AR has thus prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent its case by filing the requisite details/documents to the

Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, we deem it fit and proper, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to decide the assessee’s application for registration u/s 12A of the Act afresh on merits as per fact and law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submissions before the Ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08th June, 2026.