AUDUMBAR SADGURU NIWAS FOUNDATION,PARBHANI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

(iii) No supporting evidence viz bills/invoices of expenditure on each activity, photographs, cuttings etc has been furnished to prove the genuineness of activities. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of proof of activities being carried out it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion about the genuineness of activities and also to ascertain as to whether the activities are in line with the objects of the trust /institution.

(iv) Copy of bank statements of last 3 years has not been furnished by you. Kindly furnish the same.

(v) As noticed from the financial statements, the entire expenditure has been made on construction and not on any activities. It, therefore, appears that the activities have not been commenced as yet."

4.1 As the assessee did not furnish any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, the Ld. CIT(E) presumed that the assessee has nothing to say in the matter. Having been unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust, the Ld. CIT(E) proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application of the assessee and also cancelling the provisional registration earlier granted to the assessee by observing as under : “7. Considering the above facts discussed in the show notice and discrepancies noticed and also that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the provisions of Rule 17A(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 in spite giving sufficient opportunities, the undersigned is unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance of requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the assessee as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects.

“1. BREACH OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune ["the Ld. CIT(E)"] erred in passing the order rejecting the application made in Form 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and cancelling provisional registration by not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing assessment. 1.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that as per the principles of natural justice, providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is mandatory before passing the adverse order. 1.3 In the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed to set aside the order passed by the CIT(E).

2. ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION IN FORM 10AB 2.1 The Ld. CIT(E) erred in not granting the regular registration u/s 12A/12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] and cancelling the provisional registration vide ex parte order dated 03.09.2024. 2.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application by doubting the genuineness of the activities of the appellant and compliance to requirements of any other law. 2.3 In the above circumstances, the Appellant prays to set aside the order rejecting the application under Form 10AB and cancelling the provisional registration and it further prayed to grant regular registration for five years.

3. LIBERTY The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or substitute any of the above grounds of appeal.”

6. Admittedly, the facts of the case in are similar to that of narrated above. Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No. 1034/PUN/2025 which read as under:

“1. BREACH OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). Pune ["the Ld. CIT(E)"] erred in passing the order rejecting the application made in Form 10AB under section 80G(5)(0) and cancelling provisional approval by not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing assessment. 1.2 While doing so, the L.d. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that as per the principles of natural justice, providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is mandatory before passing the adverse order. 1.3 In the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed to set aside the order passed by the CIT(E) 2. ERRED IN CANCELLING REGULAR REGISTRATION GRANTED 2.1 The Ld. CTT(E) erred in not granting regular approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] and cancelling the provisional approval vide order dated 03.09.2024. 2.2 In the above circumstances, the Appellant prays to set aside the order of cancelling the regular approval and it further prayed to grant regular approval for five years.

3. LIBERTY The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or substitute any of the above grounds of appeal.”

8. The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application for registration under section 12A of the Act on account of non-compliance of the show cause notice wherein certain discrepancies were pointed out by the Ld. CIT(E). He submitted that the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(E) was not intentional but it was due to the mistake of the tax consultant who did not inform the assessee about the same. He therefore prayed that in the interest of justice, the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to present and substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(E) by filing all the requisite details/ documents to his satisfaction and the matter may be restored back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits.