SIDDHANTA KNWLEDGE FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 45 days. The order of CIT(E) dated 26.12.2024 Siddhanta Knowledge Foundation

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of CIT(E) is erroneous and bad in law, as the same is opposed to the provisions of law and facts of the case,

The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the approval u/s 80G of the Act without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for various incorrect reasons without providing the appellant an opportunity to rebut his allegations.

The CIT(E) erred in dismissing application on incorrect reasoning that activities of the trust do not constituent charitable activities when the appellant has been duly carrying out charitable activities as defined u/s.2(15) of the Act. Siddhanta Knowledge Foundation

The CIT(E) ought to have seen the main objective of the Appellant is to provide education, which is a charitable purpose u/s.2(15) of the Act.

The CIT(E) failed to consider the company itself is incorporated u/s 25 of the Companies Act 1926 for conducting charitable object.

The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration on incorrect reasons without considering the objects and facts in a proper manner.

There being no discrepancies, the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on the basis of incorrect conclusions arrived at by him.

The CIT(E) erred in concluding that no amount has been spent by the appellant towards charity.

Any other ground than may be raised at the time of hearing”

At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee drew our attention to the paper book which is additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal). The Additional evidences are as per index below:- S. No. Date Documents Page No. 1. 29.07.2023 MOU between Indian Knowledge System and the Appellant 1–3 2. 18.09.2023 Copy of Sanction Letter from Indian Knowledge System 4 & 5 3. 22.11.2024 MOU between M.O.P. Vaishnav College and the Appellant 6–9 4. 26.03.2025 Circular of University Grants Commission in D.F.No.159854/UGC/IKS/2025 10 5. --- Audited Financials of the Appellant for A.Y. 2023–24 11–33 6. --- Audited Financials of the Appellant for A.Y. 2024–25 34–56 7. --- Letter from Indian Knowledge System Division 57 8. --- List of Scholars with Foundation 58 & 59 9. --- Brochure – Indian Knowledge System Courses for Each Stream 60–84 10. --- Book by the Appellant: "An Introduction to Bharatiya Knowledge Systems" 85–157 Siddhanta Knowledge Foundation

The Ld. AR submitted that additional evidences from pages 1 to 157 were bonafide not filed before the Ld. CIT(E). Hence, in the light of averments made he prayed for admission of additional evidence filed in the form of paper books. 6. The Ld. DR-CIT was also of the view that if additional evidence is admitted then the matter should be set aside to CIT(E) for fresh consideration and decision thereon.

We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the Paper book containing the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and find that aforesaid evidences which goes to the root of matter were bonafide not filed before the learned CIT(E).

In this view of the matter, we therefore, to do substantial justice admit additional evidences now furnished by the assessee before us for consideration and examination by the Ld. CIT(E). Since the additional evidences in the form of paper book was not filed before the Ld. CIT(E) at the time of deciding the application filed on 28.06.2024 in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act and the same was not examined on the Siddhanta Knowledge Foundation

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