RADHIKA BAL VIDYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAUNPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.188/VNS/2024 Radhika Bal Vidya Mandir vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Shiksha Samiti, Shaikhpur, (Exemption), Lucknow Sadar, Jaunpur, U.P.-22002 PAN: AABAR5382A (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No. 189/VNS/2024 Radhika Educational Trust, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 131-B, Sadar Shaikhpur, (Exemption), Lucknow Jaunpur, U.P.-22002 PAN: AACTR0305D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR Date of hearing: 13.05.2026 Date of pronouncement: 27.05.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: Both these appeals which relate to a common group, have been filed against the separate orders of the ld. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow, wherein the ld. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow has rejected the application of the two Trusts for registration under section 12AB Income Tax Act, that had been filed by the assessees in Form No. 10AB on 23.03.2024. As the facts in the two cases appear to be identical, the two cases are being taken together for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

ITA Nos. 188 & 189/VNS/2024 Radhika Bal Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti ITA No. 188/VNS/2024 “(1) the Id. CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts, in rejecting the application dated 20.03.2024, filed by the appellant Society, in Form No. 10AB, whereby it had sought for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act; (2) the Id. CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the genuineness and commencement of the activities (carried on by the appellant Society) are not in consonance with the objects of the appellant Society: (3) the ld. CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts, in not considering the submission made by the appellant Society, wherein it had duly annexed requisite documentary evidences; (4) the Id. CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts, in not affording, the appellant Society, due and reasonable opportunity of being heard; WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID (5) the appellant Society has been carrying out charitable activities, as defined in section 2(15) of the Act, ever since its inception in 1997, which are also mentioned /provided in the 'objects' of the Society as mentioned in the related Society deed. (6) the appellant Society had been granted provisional registration under section 12A of the Act, by ld. CIT (Exemption), vide order dated. 27.11.2021, and ever since then, there has been no change in the activities of the Society and refusal for renewal/registration of the appellant Society that had been made by the Id. CIT(E), and impugned in this appeal, is contrary to the fact, law and principles of natural justice; (7) the appellant Society had duly submitted its reply before the ld.CIT(E), on 12.08.2024, in due compliance of notice dated 06.08.2024, whereby it had made due and effective compliance of the queries raised to the SCN, and view taken by the ld. CIT(E) to the effect that reply, as had been submitted by the appellant Society, was not satisfactory, is contrary to the facts of the case; (8) BECAUSE the order appealed against, is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.” ITA No. 189/VNS/2024 “(1) the Id. CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts, in rejecting the application dated 20.03.2024, filed by the appellant Trust, in Form No. 10AB, whereby it had sought for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act; (2) the Id. CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the genuineness and commencement of the activities (carried on by the appellant Trust) are not in consonance with the objects of the appellant Trust: (3) the Id. CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts, in not considering the submission made by the appellant Trust, wherein it had duly annexed requisite documentary evidences;

ITA Nos. 188 & 189/VNS/2024 Radhika Bal Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti (4) the Id. CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts, in not affording, the appellant Trust, due and reasonable opportunity of being heard; WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID (5) the appellant Trust has been carrying out charitable activities, as defined in section 2(15) of the Act, ever since its inception in 1997, which are also mentioned /provided in the 'objects of the Trust as mentioned in the related Trust deed. (6) the appellant Trust had been granted provisional registration under section 12A of the Act, by ld. CIT (Exemption), vide order dated 05.04.2022, and ever since then, there has been no change in the activities of the Trust and refusal for renewal/registration of the appellant Trust that had been made by the Id. CIT(E), and impugned in this appeal, is contrary to the fact, law and principles of natural justice;”

ITA Nos. 188 & 189/VNS/2024 Radhika Bal Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti thus the genuineness of activities, as per object of trust deed could not be established. Since section 12AB made it clear that the Commissioner had to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the trust / institution and had to verify that they were in consonance with the objects of the trust, this satisfaction could not be arrived at. The ld. CIT(Exemption) also noted, that the assessee had claimed to be running an educational institution but had failed to file the necessary affiliation obtained from any school board. It had also not filed a certificate that all the requirements of law had been complied with. He, therefore, held it to be in violation of section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Act and on account of all these factors, the ld. CIT(Exemption) held that since he was not satisfied about the genuineness of the activities and commencement of charitable activities and also unable to verify that the said activities were in consonance with its objects, he was rejecting the application under section 12AB. 3. The facts of in the case of Radhika Educational Trust are identical except for the fact that in this case, the notice was issued to the assessee on 10.07.2024 fixing the date of compliance on 25.07.2024. Other than that, the ld. CIT(Exemption) passed an identical order rejecting the application of the assessee under section 12AB. 4. The assessees are aggrieved and have accordingly come before us. Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) appeared on behalf of the assessee and argued, that in the first place, the ld. CIT(Exemption) exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking to call for evidences and documents of activities i.e., application at the time of granting of registration as it was only the objects which had to be seen at that point of time. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(Exemption) was bad in law in terms of earlier judgments of the Courts on the subject. Without prejudice to the

ITA Nos. 188 & 189/VNS/2024 Radhika Bal Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti above, he submitted that the assessees had not been offered due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and the ld. CIT(Exemption) had not considered the submissions made by the assessee societies wherein they had duly annexed the requisite documentary evidences. It was submitted that the assessee societies had carried out charitable activities right since their inception in 1997, which were also mentioned / provided for in the objects of the society, as mentioned in the related society / trust deed. Furthermore, they had been granted provisional registration under section 12A of the Act by the ld. CIT(Exemption) vide orders dated 27.11.2021 in the case of Radhika Bal Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti and on 5.04.2022 in the case of Radhika Educational Trust, and ever since then, there had been no change in the activities of the societies. Therefore, the refusal for renewal of registration that had been made by the ld. CIT(Exemption) was unjustified and in any case, it was contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it was prayed that the orders of the ld. CIT(Exemption) may kindly be set aside and the registration be granted to the aforesaid Society and Trust as applied for. 5. On the other hand, Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) submitted that, as pointed out by the ld. CIT(Exemption) in his order itself, under the new procedure prescribed in section 12AB of the Act, the ld. CIT(Exemption) was required to examine the genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution and the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force, as were material for the purpose of achieving its objects and for this purpose, he was entitled to call for such documents or information from the trust or make such enquiries as he thinks necessary. Therefore, the case laws being referred to by the ld. AR, which were based on the pre-amended law did not hold any relevance to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that 5

ITA Nos. 188 & 189/VNS/2024 Radhika Bal Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti the ld. CIT(Exemption) had not been able to satisfy himself on these two points and therefore, he had rejected the registration. However, the ld. CIT DR submitted that if the Tribunal, in its’ wisdom felt that the assessees should be given another opportunity to demonstrate their bona fides, the matter could be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(Exemption) for reconsideration. 6. We have duly considered the facts of both cases and the arguments of the rival parties. We are in agreement with the ld. CIT DR that following the amendment to the registration process, the case laws laying down the scope of the Commissioner’s enquiries under the pre-amended Act would not be a useful barometer to judge the actions of the Commissioner. However, it does appear that the assessees have not been granted adequate opportunity to present their case, particularly when the society and the trust have both being functioning from 1997 and have been granted provisional registration earlier on the same facts and circumstances as were prevailing on the date of rejection of their applications for renewal of registration. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore both these matters back to the file of the ld. CIT(Exemption) so as to give the assessees an opportunity to present all the necessary evidences to satisfy the ld. CIT(Exemption) with regard to the genuineness of their activities and the compliance of other laws as were material for the purpose of achieving their objects. Accordingly, both the appeals are held to be allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos. 188 & 189/VNS/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA Nos. 188 & 189/VNS/2024 Radhika Bal Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti Orders pronounced on 27.05.2026 in the open Court. Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27/05/2026 Sh- Sd/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. CIT, 5. The CIT(A) By order Sr. P.S.