SHRI DAMODAR GOU SEVA TRUST KARJALA TA SAVARKUNDLA,SAVARKUNDLA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions). Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Appellant Trust's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) read with Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act. 1961, solely on the ground of alleged non-compliance with show cause notices, without adjudicating the application on merits.

That the impugned order is bad in law, arbitrary and unsustainable, inasmuch as all basic and mandatory documents required for verification Asst. Year : NA - 2– under Section 12AB and Rule 17A, including the past audit reports, Trust Deed, Trust registration certificate, NO, and NO, were already submitted along with Form No. 10AB at the time of filing of the application.

That the Learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that only replies to the show cause notices were not submitted, whereas the foundational documentary evidence necessary to verify the 3 objects, genuineness of activities and statutory compliance of the Trust was already available on record, and therefore the application could and ought to have been decided on the basis of the material already furnished.

That rejection of the application merely on account of non-reply to show cause notices, without examination of the documents already submitted, amounts to elevating procedural non-compliance over substantive justice, which is impermissible in proceedings relating to grant of registration to charitable OR religious trusts.

That the Learned CIT(E) was fully empowered to examine and verify the documents already uploaded along with the application under Form No. 10AB and to record satisfaction OR otherwise regarding the genuineness of activities and objects of the Trust, and mere non-response to portal-based notices could not have been treated as conclusive ground for rejection without such verification.

That in the absence of actual knowledge of issuance of show cause notices, no adverse inference ought to have been drawn 6 against the Appellant Trust and passing of the impugned order without ensuring effective service amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

That the non-submission of replied was neither deliberate nor with any intention to suppress facts OR withhold information, and there is no finding in the impugned order disputing the charitable OR religious nature of the objects OR the genuineness of activities of the Trust.

That the impugned rejection has caused grave prejudice to the Appellant Trust and the same deservers to be set aside, and the matter be restored to the file of the Learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard and permitting submission of replies and explanations, if required. Asst. Year : NA - 3–

That the Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend OR withdraw any of the above grounds of OR before the time of hearing.