UMBRELLA FOUNDATION ,BANGALORE vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 148/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 March 2025Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the AO's finding about non-commencement of activities was not supported by evidence and that email correspondences with Tata Memorial Centre for cancer patient relief indicated commenced activities. The Tribunal held that these documents were not examined by the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trust providing medical relief, applied for permanent registration under Section 12AB of the IT Act. The CIT(E) denied registration based on the AO's report that the trust had undertaken few charitable activities. The AO noted some income and online consultation services but concluded insufficient activity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in denying registration under Section 12AB based on a lack of evidence of charitable activities, when the assessee had provided documentary proof of commenced activities?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

ORDER PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the Ld.CIT(E) dated 23/12/2024 and relates to the denial of the registration u/s. 12AB of the IT Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case as coming out from the order of the Ld.CIT(E) are that the assessee is a trust established to provide medical relief, provide support, assistance and promote medical relief in whatever form including treatments plans for cancer, heart disease, eye care etc. The assessee has got provisional registration u/s. 12AB. Thereafter vide application dated 20/06/2024 assessee applied for permanent registration of 12AB. The Ld. CIT(E), after receiving the application of the assessee, sought comments of the assessing officer viz., the objects and activities of the trust.

2.1 The Ld.AO sent his comments and reported that the assessee has carried out only few charitable activities. The Ld.AO has also commented that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 2,12,278/- as on 30/09/2024 and has also provided online expert consultation service to the needy persons. The AO thereafter concluded that the assessee has not undertaken any other charitable activities and hence not entitled for the registration u/s. 12AB.

3.

The Ld.CIT(E) after considering the comments of the AO denied the exemption to the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(E), assessee has come up in appeal before us.

5.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the observations of the Ld.AO as well as the Ld.CIT(E) that the assessee has not commenced its activities are factually incorrect. Counsel for the assessee drawn the attention of the Bench to page nos. 82-87 of the paper book and argued that the assessee has tied up Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Mumbai for providing services to the low income cancer patients across India. Counsel for the assessee has also drawn the attention of the Bench to some other pages of the paper book.

6.

The Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue drawn the attention of the Bench towards pages 42-46 of the paper book and argued that the provisional income and expenditure account of the assessee would show that there is absolutely no activity has been carried by the assessee.

Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 148/Bang/2025

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

8.

We observe that there is a mention of receipt of an amount of Rs. 2,12,278/- in the comments sent by the AO to the CIT(E) office. We further observed that there is a finding of the AO that assessee has provided consultation to some patients. However, pages 42-46 of the PB are not matching with the comments of the AO as well as the submissions made by the assessee. We would further observe that there were email correspondences between assessee and Tata Memorial Centre for providing relief to cancer patients across India. These emails and documents, supports the contention of the assessee that the activities of the assessee were duly commenced. These documents have not been examined by lower authorities, which in our view is not correct. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this matter to the file of Ld.CIT(E) and direct the Ld.CIT(E) to consider the application of the assessee along with documentary evidences afresh. Needless to say that the Ld.CIT(E) should grant meaningful opportunity before passing any order.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th March, 2025.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →