SMT PUSHPA SARJI RAMESH CHARITABLE TRUST,SRI BANASHANKARI NILAYA GOPALGOUDA EXTENSION vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, SHIMOGA , SHIMOGA,KARNATAKA

The Learned Commissioner ought to have granted additional time to comply with the requirements considering the nature of the Appellant;

The order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore bad in law;

The Learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the Appellant institution is a charitable institution Trust and that the Appellant had satisfied the conditions required and ought to have granted the recognition under section 12AB of the Act;

The Learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the Appellant had not violated any of the conditions laid down in section 12AB of the Act and ought to have granted the recognition as prayed for.

The Order of the Learned Commissioner has fallen in error of facts as well as in law as the basis of rejection is based on an incorrect assumption of facts rendering the impugned order to be perverse;

The Learned Commissioner has erred in questioning the nature of activities without establishing any defect or infirmity in the documents as already submitted;

The Learned Commissioner ought to have granted additional time to comply with the requirements considering the nature of the Appellant;

The order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore bad in law;

The Learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the Appellant institution is a charitable institution Trust and that the. Appellant had satisfied the conditions required and ought to have granted the recognition under section 12AB of the Act;

The Learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that. the Appellant had not violated any of the conditions laid down in section 12A13 of the Act and ought to have granted the recognition as prayed for.

The Order of the Learned Commissioner has fallen in error of facts as well as in law as the basis or rejection is based on an incorrect assumption of facts rendering the impugned order to be perverse;

The Learned Commissioner has erred in questioning the nature of activities without establishing any defect or infirmity in the documents as already submitted;

Both the appeals are related to the same assessee and therefore we decided to take up both the appeals together and pass a common order for the sake of convenience.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust and running an educational institution. The assessee got provisional registration u/s. 12AA and 80G on 29/03/2022 and 30/03/2022 respectively. Subsequently, the assessee trust applied for final registration on 22/11/2022 but the Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the same for the reason that the assessee had not started the activities. Thereafter, the assessee filed

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR filed a paper book and also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and the order of the Hon’ble ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal and prayed to allow the appeal.

The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

We have perused the documents filed in the paper book in which the assessee had produced the provisional registration certificates issued u/s. 12AA and 80G of the Act and the trust deed and the grievance filed before the authorities and the facts are not disputed that the assessee is a charitable trust running an education institution. We have also considered the provisional registration granted u/s. 12AA and section 80G of the Act which shows that the authorities have satisfied themselves that the assessee trust is charitable in nature. But while considering the application for final registration under both the provisions, the Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the said applications for the technical defect i.e. the assessee had selected the wrong section code. The Ld.CIT(E) had also not stated anything on merits against the assessee but the only defect pointed out by the Ld.CIT(E) is that the assessee had selected the wrong section code. We feel that it is only a technical mistake but unfortunately the Ld.CIT(E) had also not granted an opportunity before rejecting the said applications filed by the assessee.

We are of the view that when there is no dispute about the charitable activities carried out by the assessee, on mere technicalities, the application for final registration u/s. 12AA and 80G could not be rejected which would affect the assessees very badly.

We have also gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court reported in (2024) 161 taxmann.com 311 in the case of Parameswari Bai Memorial Trust vs. CIT(E) in which the Hon’ble High Court has set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and restored the application filed for registration u/s. 12AB to the CIT(E) to take a decision afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

We have also considered the order of the Hon’ble ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal in ITA No. 47/Hyd/2024 dated 15/03/2024 in which the similar issue came up for hearing and the Tribunal had passed the following order. “13. Now coming to the practical aspect of hardship that has befallen on the assessee, the fact remains that finally vide Circular No.6/2023 dated 24/05/2023, CBDT extended the date up to 30/09/2023, whereas the assessee filed Form 10AB by 15/05/2023. Though the assessee did not plead before the Revenue authorities by that day about the mistake of selection of wrong section code while applying in Form 10AB and seek rectification, the request of the assessee for regular registration is pending by that date. Though in a wrong Form, the request of the assessee was pending before the due date. In this peculiarity of the circumstances, we deem it just and proper to condone the mistake committed by the assessee while applying registration in Form 10AB instead of Form 10A and also by making a selection of wrong section code, namely, 02-Sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act instead of 02-Sub clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act. We accordingly condone such a mistake. Learned CIT(E) will proceed to hear and dispose the request of the assessee by allowing it to apply now under Form 10A. Grounds are allowed.”

In view of the above said facts and also relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court as well as the order of the Hon’ble Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th February, 2025. (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member

Respondent 3. CIT

DR, ITAT, Bangalore

Guard file

CIT(A)