HELP POOR VOLUNTARY TRUST,,SRINAGAR, KASHMIR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

On the circumstances and facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(E) was unjustified in cancelling the registration of the assessee trust from 2022-23 to 2026-27. 2. On the circumstances and facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(E) has erred in holding that non response to a notice in respect of a query for a particular year makes registration liable to cancellation retrospectively for all years.

The Ld. CIT(E) has to failed to acknowledge the response of the assessee conveyed on 7th & 28th July 2025 & has thus passed the order without looking at material on record and application of mind.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or substitute any other ground necessary to meet ends of justice.

The assessee has also raised following additional grounds:

At the outset, the Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) erred both on facts and in law in cancelling the registration of the trust primarily on the ground of alleged non-compliance and non-submission of reply to notices. It was contended that such cancellation is unjustified, especially when the activities of the trust were never found to be non-genuine or not in accordance with its objects. It was further submitted that mere non-response or procedural lapse cannot be a ground for cancellation of registration retrospectively for all years. The assessee also raised additional grounds contending that the CIT(E) has applied provisions not applicable for the relevant assessment year and that the proceedings themselves are vitiated in law.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that sufficient opportunities were granted to the assessee to furnish explanations and supporting documents, which were not availed, thereby justifying the action of cancellation.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the cancellation of registration has been carried out primarily on account of non-compliance by the assessee in responding to notices issued during the proceedings. However, from the record and grounds raised, it is evident that the assessee has now contested that such non-compliance was neither wilful nor indicative of non-genuineness of activities. The assessee has also raised specific grounds that the CIT(E) failed to examine the activities of the trust in substance and did not consider material evidence which could demonstrate that the trust continued to carry out charitable activities in accordance with its stated objects.

1 Further, the additional grounds raised by the assessee go to the root of the matter, particularly regarding the applicability of legal provisions and the validity of the proceedings undertaken by the Ld. CIT(E). In our considered view, these grounds require proper examination at the level of the Ld. CIT(E), which has not been adequately done in the impugned order.

2 It is a settled principle of natural justice that an assessee should be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, especially when adverse consequences such as cancellation of registration are involved. In the present case, although notices were issued, the impugned order does not reflect a proper

3

4 The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all necessary details and documents as may be required by the Ld. CIT(E) for proper adjudication.

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

""थ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File