Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Bal Hanuman Mandir, applied for registration under section 12AB. The CIT(E) rejected the application, stating the re-drafted trust deed was not approved by the Charity Commissioner. The assessee appealed, arguing the issue was previously accepted by the Tribunal and their activities matched the trust deed's objects.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's audited financials matched the objects in the trust deed and the PTR, and the objects were not discriminatory. The CIT(E) failed to demonstrate that expenditures were for specific communities only. Therefore, the rejection of the application was not justifiable.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB, considering the Tribunal's previous directions and the assessee's compliance with audited financials matching trust objects.
Sections Cited
12A, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT “DB” BENCH, SURAT
Before: Dr. BRR Kumar, Hon’ble & Ms. Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 21-05- 2025 passed by CIT(E), Ahmedabad for assessment year 2022-23.
The grounds of appeal are as under:- “(1) The order of the CIT(E) subsequent to the directions of the Tribunal is barred by limitation. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the learned CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting application u/s.12A. (3) The appellant having complied with the directions of the Tribunal in the first round, the learned CIT(E) should have granted registration u/s. 12A.
I.T.A No. 736/Srt/2025 Bal Hanuman Mandir, A.Y. 2022-23
(4) The learned CIT(E) was not justified in not following the directions of the Tribunal in the first round of acceptance of the redrafted Trust Deed, and rejecting the application u/s. 12AB. (5) Without prejudice to the above, in absence of the Trust Deed, the learned CIT(E) ought to have accepted the objects stated under the PTR of the office of the Charity Commissioner and examined activities. (6) The above grounds are prejudiced to one another. (7) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.”
The assessee has made an application u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking registration vide application dated 19-08-2022. The said application was rejected vide order dated 27-02-2023. Against the said order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Tribunal and vide order 17-07-2023, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) observed that the assessee was granted provisional approval in Form 10AC under sub-section (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A on 10-03-2022 from assessment year 2022-23. The assessee was called upon to file certain details and the applicant submitted re-drafted trust deed before the CIT(E). The CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that the assessee submitted only re-drafted trust deed which was not approved by the Charity Commissioner and hence could not verify the activity. The applicant filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the same issue was raised in first round vide notice dated 17.10.2022 and was accepted and the issue which was already been reviewed and accepted was again taken into consideration and rejected on the very same ground by the CIT(E). The ld. A.R. pointed out that the activities
I.T.A No. 736/Srt/2025 Bal Hanuman Mandir, A.Y. 2022-23
undertaken as per audited financials matches with the objects specified in the trust deed (PTR).
The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the CIT(E).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was carrying out the activities as per the audited financials which are identical to that of the objects mentioned in the PTR as well as in the redrafted trust deed. From the perusal of the redrafted deed, the object are not restricted to one particular community only but for all communities without any discrimination based on caste, creed, gender or religion. The CIT(E) could not point out from the financials that the expenditure was incurred for specific community only and not to the general public at large. Thus, it will be appropriate to allow the application of the trust for registration u/s. 12AB. Thus, the rejection is not justifiable and the plea of the applicant is allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the applicant/appellant is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 02.04.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 02/04/2026 TRUE COPY आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard file. 3
I.T.A No. 736/Srt/2025 Bal Hanuman Mandir, A.Y. 2022-23
By order, Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat a.k.
Strengthened preparation & delivery of orders in the ITAT 1) Date of dictation 03/02/2026 2) Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 05/02/2026 (copy of ITA Dictating Member & Other Member No. 690-Srt-2025)
3) Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. /02/2026 P.S./P.S. 4) Date on which the fair order is placed before the /02/2026 Dictating Member for pronouncement 5) Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. /02/2026 P.S./P.S. 6) Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk /02/2026 7) Date on which the file goes the Head Clerk 8) Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9) Date of Dispatch of the order