AYESHA AMINA TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS , BENGALURU

The present appeal of the assessee is arising out of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru [CIT(E)] dated 11.11.2024 and relates to denial of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a trust, has been formed vide Trust Deed dated 10.8.1972 with the objects of sponsoring and establishing institution for the purpose of religious and other social functions under the name and style of “Ayesha Shadi Mahal” and also for providing education for imparting obligatory Islamic religious instructions under the name “Amina Educational Institutions/ Madrassas”. Thereafter trust deed was amended in August, 2024. After the amendment the objectives of the trust have been amended to include inter alia imparting education from nursery to higher classes to the poor and destitute children of the society.

In the above background assessee has applied for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. It is pertinent to note that assessee has also got provisional registration u/s. 12AB on 28.2.2023 which was applicable for AY 2023-24 to 2025-26. Thereafter assessee filed application dated 14.5.2024 for permanent registration before the concerned authority in Form 10AB. After receipt of the application, the ld. authority has called for certain details vide notices dated 25.9.2024. In response to the said notice, assessee filed its reply along with some documentary evidences. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee vide order dated 11.11.2024.

Aggrieved with this order, the assessee has come up in appeal before us and inter alia argued that the ld. CIT(E) has violated the principle of natural justice by not considering the relevant documentary evidence before passing the impugned order. The ld. counsel for the assessee has also drawn attention of the Bench towards para 6 of the impugned order and contended that perusal of the order would show that the order is perverse.

The ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue has informed that there is some inadvertent mistake in para 6 of the impugned order and the authority concerned is going to pass a Corrigendum soon. However, she has not objected in case the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that in this case assessee has duly submitted certain documentary evidences along with its reply dated 9.10.2024 in the office of the ld. CIT(E). Copies of these documents are placed at page 3 to 55 of the PB. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the ld. CIT(E) has not at all considered any of the documents filed before him. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby restore the matter to the ld. CIT(E) for deciding it afresh along with direction that the ld. CIT(E) would pass a reasoned order after considering the documentary evidences filed by the appellant before the authority. Needless to say that sufficient opportunity be provided to the assessee before passing any order.