Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Meera-Twinkle Sanstha, appealed against the orders of the CIT(Exemption) rejecting its application for regular registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) held that the assessee's activities were not genuine and did not align with its stated charitable objectives.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for registration was rejected by the CIT(E) on grounds that its activities were not genuine and did not align with its trust deed. The Tribunal also noted the denial of virtual hearing by the CIT(E) and, following the Bombay High Court's decision, directed the CIT(E) to provide a virtual hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's activities were genuine and aligned with its charitable objectives, and whether the denial of a virtual hearing violated principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
12A, 12A(1)(ac)(iii), 12AB, 2(15)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune rejecting the application under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.09.2024 & 15.03.2024 respectively. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We treat the appeal in ITA & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] No.2473/PUN/2025 as lead case. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellant's application for regular registration u/s 124(1)(ac)(iii) of ITA, 1961.
1. 2. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in law and on facts in holding that activities of the appellant are not genuine. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, ought to have appreciated that appellant's activities are genuine and bonafide, and as such, eligible for registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961
3. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that ensuring justice for victims of financial exploitation by the CITRUS group through legal aid and support programs is as per the object clause of the trust deed. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, also erred in observing that the benefits of appellant's activities are confined to a specific group and not to a public at large.
4. Appellant contends that due to lack of proper advice and absence of educated employees, appellant could not ensure compliance with CIT(Exemption)'s rejection order dated 15/03/2024 revoking the provisional registration and as such made a separate application for regular registration in Form 10AB on 29/03/2024. Appellant contends that appellant is keen to make all compliances and remain on the better side of the law.
5. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in law and on facts in not granting a virtual hearing to explain the facts more clearly despite the specific request of the appellant thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as it deprived the appellant of the opportunity to effectively explain the activities of the trust, which the appellant believes could have demonstrated that the registration should not be rejected on merits.
6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.” Findings & Analysis :
2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), dated 28.09.2024 under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, wherein Assessee’s application has been 2 & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] rejected. The relevant paragraphs of said order are reproduced here as under : “6.4 The assessee's submission is duly considered. However, the same is not found to be acceptable. The assessee contends that it is fighting against financial exploitation by the CITRUS Group of economically backward communities who have been deceived into investing money with promises of high returns but never receive even their principal amount back. The activity described does not align with the stated objectives of the trust as outlined in its deed. While the trust's objectives primarily focus on assisting the poor and needy through medical aid, sports promotion, educational support, and celebrating public festivals, the activity described pertains to legal advocacy against financial exploitation by a specific group. While the cause may be commendable, the activity deviates from the defined objectives as it lacks direct involvement in medical treatment, sports promotion, or educational support as outlined in the trust's objectives, the trust could've carried out some of these charitable activities. However, the same is not conducted by the trust till date. Therefore, the activity does not meet the criteria for charitable purposes as stipulated in the trust deed. Apparently, even the trust has realized the same and hence, the same has not been reported by it under the head 'Expenditure on the objects of the trust'. Also, the photographs submitted shows general gathering/ march past of people and does not relate to any charity. Further, the assessee has furnished documentary evidences related to legal fee and the same fails to meet the criteria of charitable activities. 6.5 Also, the assessee's earlier application filed in form 10AB on 30/09/2023 was rejected on 31/03/2024 on the ground of its failure to submit the requisite information/ documents. Also, the assessee's provisional registration in form 10AC u/s 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Act dt. 27/05/2021 was also cancelled. As such, the assessee had no valid provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Act at the time of filing the present application. In view of the above, the application No.CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE/2024-25/12AA/11603 in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29/03/2024 filed by the assessee is hereby rejected. Needless to say that the provisional registration granted on 27/05/2021 under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has already been cancelled vide order dt. 31/03/2024. 6.6 The applicant assessee has also stated that it is not given physical hearing in spite of requests made by it, which is not correct. The applicant was asked to submit the response / compliance on e-portal only but that is for the submission of documents and facilitation for the 3 & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] assessee. It is also stated in all notices that "Personal attendance is not insisted". The purpose is to have e-compliance so that the record is maintained, in line with government policies to encourage digital records and reduce use of papers considering the environmental impact and also in line with rulings given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court etc where digital filing of documents / appeals is mandated. Moreover, personal hearing is not insisted upon but also not prohibited and the applicant can always attend to explain its case. Therefore, contention of the assessee is not accepted and hereby rejected.
7. Considering the above facts discussed in the show notice and discrepancies noticed, the undersigned is not satisfied about the charitable nature and 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.
8. In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected and the provisional registration granted on 27/05/2021 under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.”
Assessee has filed copy of provisional registration dated 27.05.2021 valid till A.Y.2023-24 at page no.52 of the paper book. Earlier, Assessee had applied for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, on 31.03.2023 in Form No.10AB of the Act. The said application was rejected by ld.CIT(E)-Pune vide his order dated 05.09.2023(copy at page 75 to 78 of paper book).
3.1 Then, Assessee again applied on 30.09.2023 in Form 10AB for registration u/s.12A, which was rejected by ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 15.03.2024. Assessee filed appeal before ITAT against ld.CIT(E)’s order dated 15.03.2024. The appeal number in & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] was also heard on 18.09.2025 along with ITA No.2473/PUN/2024.
It has been observed by ld.CIT(E) in the order that activities of the Assessee are not charitable as defined under section 2(15) of the Act, and these activities are not as per the objects of the Assessee Society. Assessee is a society registered on 18.09.2019 by Assistant Registrar of Society-Pune. Copy of the said certificate has been filed at page no.1 of the paper book. At page no.12 of the paper book, Assessee filed copy of the Certificate issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner-Pune stating that “Meera-Twinkle Sevabhavi Sanstha, S.No.127/3/B2, Flat No.101, Kamlesh Society, Near Zala Society, Kothrud, Pune – 411038 is registered Public Trust with Registration No.F-56244/Pune. The Certificate was issued to Mrs.Rajashree Pradeep Gadgil dated 24th November 2021.”
During the proceedings, ld.AR submitted a note on activities carried out by the Assessee. The same is reproduced here as under : “3.2. Appellant Trust's Objectives and Activities: a) Stated objective: As per the Trust Deed, the 4 objective of the appellant, in brief, is as follows: iv. Social & Constructive Work 5 & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] Aim to eradicate harmful societal practices, promote literacy, and support education for underprivileged groups. It focuses on combating poverty and injustice by addressing economic, physical, social, and emotional exploitation of the poor, women, and children. Efforts include providing modern facilities for the homeless and elderly, organizing health camps, and ensuring justice for victims through legal aid and support programs." A copy of appellant's trust deed is attached herewith and marked as (Page no. 2 to 11 of paper Book The economically weaker and illiterate sections of society, due to their lack of education and awareness, are often subjected to financial exploitation through fraudulent schemes, which deprive them of their meagre savings and leave them without recourse to justice. Addressing such exploitation and providing legal aid to victims of such injustice directly aligns with the appellant trust's stated objectives. 3.3. Nature of the Citrus Group's activities as affecting the public at large: In this context, it came to the notice of the appellant trust that the Citrus Group had targeted a large number of economically backward and illiterate individuals - such as housekeepers, drivers, and daily wage earners by luring them with false promises of high returns through so- called "investment" and "holiday" schemes. Deceived by these misrepresentations, they invested their savings but ultimately lost even their principal amounts, leaving them financially ruined and helpless, with no understanding of how to seek redress. It is respectfully submitted that the above fraudulent schemes of the Citrus Group impacted a wide section of society, comprising economically vulnerable individuals, thereby raising a matter of significant public concern, attracting judicial scrutiny. The seriousness and scale of the fraud and the resultant harm to the public at large are evident from the following chronology of regulatory and judicial actions: Regulatory/Judicial Intervention/Decision Supporting Attached as Forum Publications Annexure SEBI Intervention SEBI investigated Media Annexure-01 and passed Interim References: orders against CCIL and RTSCPL 6 for SEBI acts & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] illegal collective against Citrus investment schemes. Check Inns for Final orders illegal scheme confirmed violations The Economic and imposed Times penalties. SEBI Fines Royal Twinkle Star Rs 50 Lakh Rediff Money news SEBI refuses to lift ban on Citrus in holiday plan' scheme- The Economic Times Law Enforcement Investor protests Media Annexure-02 & Public Actions prompted FIR at References: Swargate PS, Pune, Economic offence EOW to probe wing (EOW) initiated Rs 8,000 crore criminal probe into holiday firm Rs. 8,000 crore fraud scam after investors hold massive protest in Pune by Hindustan Times news Hon'ble Supreme SC (2014) held Media Annexure-03 Court Oversight RTSCPL's schemes References: illegal, ordered SEBI to act. In 2019, SC - Live Law news ordered sale of assets report on SC via committee and directions to sell continues to oversee properties refunds. NCLT intervention Insolvency Media Annexure-04 proceedings were References : initiated but stayed by the Supreme - SC stays NCLT Court due to ongoing proceedings by investigations and Economic Times concerns collusion of 7 & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] collusion Asset Recovery & SEBL, under SC Media Annexure-05 Refunds supervision, References : auctioned attached properties worth Rs. What makes 1,297 crores (2019- Royal Twinkle 2022) for Investor investors refunds. optimistic on repayments The Economics times report SEBI to auction properties of Royal Twinkle, Citrus Check Inns on Aug 14,2020 Economics times report The SEBI to auction properties of Royal Twinkle, Citrus Check Inns on July 15,2022 Economics times report The Economic times report Current Status: SC passed orders Media Annexure-06 Hon'ble Supreme (Aug 2024, Nov References: Court (2024-2025) 2024, Mar 2025) to - SEBI public facilitate refunds; notice, committee & refund - Copy of portal operational. screenshot of refund portal - The above sequence of events clearly establishes that the activities of the Citrus Group were in the nature of a large-scale public fraud, attracting regulatory intervention at the highest level and culminating in continuing oversight by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. - The matter, therefore, concerns the rights and interests of a broad, unconnected segment of the public and is demonstrably one affecting the public at large. 8 ITA Nos.2473 & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] 3.4. Appellant Trust's Involvement: - Acknowledging this injustice and consistent with the Trust's stated objective of addressing exploitation and providing legal aid to victims, the appellant trust took the initiative to assist this vulnerable community by: Activities conducted Supporting Evidence Annexures Assisted victims in Supreme Court order Annexure-07 pursuing refund claims referring to appellant before the Hon'ble Trust's involvement Supreme Court. Appointed and paid Professional fee (page no.189 to professional lawyers to bills/invoices raised by 200 of paper represent them before advocates book) the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Collecting nominal Audited financial (page no.16 to membership fees statements reflecting 41 of paper exclusively for legal receipts and utilization book) expenses Organised peaceful Photographs of the (page no.201 to protest at Azad Maidan, protest 208 of paper Mumbai in FY. 2022-23 book) to raise awareness of their plight. - It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid activities were undertaken for bona fide reasons and were devoid of any profit motive and were direct furtherance of the appellant Trust's stated charitable objectives of addressing social issues. - These activities clearly demonstrate the Trust's bona fide commitment to addressing economic and social exploitation and advancing the welfare of a substantial and unconnected section of the public at large. 3.5. Activities within the Ambit of "Charitable Purpose" u/s 2(15) of ITA, 1961: It is respectfully submitted that the appellant's activities assisting victims of large-scale are bona fide, financial fraud through legal aid, representation, and awareness initiatives non-profit, and directly aligned with its stated charitable objects of combating exploitation and promoting justice for vulnerable sections of society. 9 & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] These activities serve to unconnected and broad segment of the public, advance public welfare, and address a matter of significant public concern, as evident from regulatory and judicial oversight at the highest level. On these facts, and in line with judicial interpretation of Section 2(15), the appellant's actions clearly fall within the ambit of "advancement of any other object of general public utility."
During the proceedings, ld.AR took us through the newspaper articles appeared in various newspapers which are part of the paper book. Page No.201-208.
During the proceedings, ld.AR filed summary of Income and Expenditure Accounts of the Assessee for A.Y.2020-21 to 2024-25. It is observed as follows : o Profit for A.Y.2020-21 was 64.8%. o Profit for A.Y.2021-22 was 65.9%. o Profit for A.Y.2022-23 was 27.9% o Profit for A.Y.2023-24 was 44.8% o For A.Y.2024-25 was loss.
In the context of the Profit earned by the Assessee, the Bench specifically brought to the notice of the ld.AR for Assessee decision of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Fernandez Foundation vs. CIT(Exemption) in & 1885/Hyd/2019 and vide order dated 08.12.2022 ITAT held as under : Quote.“25 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT(Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC), while examining the issue of profit 10 generated by the general public utilities, has held as under : & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] “171. Therefore, pure charity in the sense that the performance of an activity without any consideration is not envisioned under the Act. If one keeps this in mind, what Section 2(15) emphasizes is that so long as a GPU’s charity’s object involves activities which also generates profits (incidental, or in other words, while actually carrying out the objectives of GPU, if some profit is generated), it can be granted exemption provided the quantitative limit (of not exceeding 20%) under second proviso to Section 2(15) for receipts from such profits, is adhered to.
Yet another manner of looking at the definition together with Sections 10(23) and 11 is that for achieving a general public utility object, if the charity involves itself in activities, that entail charging amounts only at cost or marginal mark up over cost, and also derive some profit, the prohibition against carrying on business or service relating to business is not attracted - if the quantum of such profits do not exceed 20% of its overall receipts.
It may be useful to conclude this section on interpretation with some illustrations. The example of Gandhi Peace Foundation disseminating Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy (in Surat Art Silk) through museums and exhibitions and publishing his works, for nominal cost, ipso facto is not business. Likewise, providing access to low-cost hostels to weaker segments of society, where the fee or charges recovered cover the costs (including administrative expenditure) plus nominal mark up; or renting marriage halls for low amounts, again with a fee meant to cover costs; or blood bank services, again with fee to cover costs, are not activities in the nature of business. Yet, when the entity concerned charges substantial amounts- over and above the cost it incurs for doing the same work, or work which is part of its object (i.e., publishing an expensive coffee table book www.taxmann.com 97 on Gandhi, or in the case of the marriage hall, charging significant amounts from those who can afford to pay, by providing extra services, far above the cost-plus nominal markup) such activities are in the nature of trade, commerce, business or service in relation to them. In such case, the receipts from such latter kind of activities where higher amounts are charged, should not exceed the limit indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15).” (emphasis supplied by us.) 11 & 2606/PUN/2024 [A]
In our view, ld.CIT(E) was correct in holding that the assessee is charging on the basis of commercial rates from the patients, either outdoor/indoor and the assessee has failed to demonstrate that the charges / fee charged by it were on a reasonable markup on the cost. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the decision of ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, the order of ld.CIT(E) is upheld and the appeal of the assessee in is dismissed.
Now coming to the remaining appeals, which are identical to the facts and issues raised in ITA 1884/Hyd/2019, our decision in would apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals also i.e., and ITA 299/Hyd/2020. Accordingly, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.”Unquote
During the hearing, ld.AR submitted that he was aware about the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Hyderabad. Ld.AR pleaded that however in the case of the Assessee, there has been loss for the A.Y.2024-25.
10. During the hearing, ld.DR invited our attention to page no.37 of the paper book, wherein an amount of Rs.2,64,202/- was shown as Donation. However, ld.DR submitted that ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that the amount of Rs.2,64,202/- is Membership Amount. Ld.DR submitted that this explains that the Accounts are not reflecting true facts. In this context, ld.AR for the Assessee & 2606/PUN/2024 [A] accepted that the amount of Rs.2,64,202/- is Membership Fee inadvertently shown as Donation.
11. During the hearing, the Bench specifically asked ld.AR regarding the amounts collected by the Assessee. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee has collected Membership Fee from many of the Investors who have been cheated by the Ponzi Scheme. We specifically asked ld.AR regarding the type of membership and membership register. The ld.AR after verifying it from the persons who were present during the hearing, submitted that no membership register is maintained. As per the page no.7 of the paper book which gives Types of Membership, and the procedure for Membership, there is a specific Form for Membership. Ld.AR submitted that no such form is available.
Ld.AR also filed an application for additional evidence and pleaded that those documents go to the root of the issue, hence, additional evidence may be admitted. Ld.AR filed copies of FIR & Complaint letter submitted to Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai on 28.01.2021 as additional evidence(page 209 to 235 of the paper book).
& 2606/PUN/2024 [A] 12. Ld.AR invited our attention to Ground No.5 of the Assessee, wherein Assessee has pleaded that Assessee made request for virtual hearing which has been denied. The fact that Assessee had made request for virtual hearing is also acknowledged by ld.CIT(E) in para 6.6 of his order. Thus, it is a fact that though Assessee requested for Virtual Hearing, ld.CIT(E) had not provided Virtual Hearing to the Assessee.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pico Capital (P.) Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 638 (Bombay) dated 07.01.2025 has held as under : “9. In the additional affidavit filed by the Respondents, the contentions based on the failure of natural justice are dealt with in paragraph 6(e), which reads as follows: - "6(e). In the March ending time, the assessee demanded hearing through video conferencing. In this regard, it is to submit that the hearing through video conferencing is available when the assessment proceedings are pending before the faceless assessing officer (FAO). In this case, as already mentioned, the proceedings have been transferred from faceless assessing officer (FAO) to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) on 20.02.2024. Hence, the facility of video conferencing was not available and the assessee was at liberty to approach the office of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) if personal hearing was required because the assessee has already been informed about the change of proceedings from FAO to JAO." 14 & 2606/PUN/2024 [A]
Mr. Gandhi has invited our attention to Circular No.F.No.225/97/2021/ITA-II dated 6 September 2021 in the context of approval for the transfer of assessments/penalties proceedings to jurisdictional Assessing Officers. This Circular provides that the request for personal hearings shall generally be allowed to the assessee with the approval of the Range Head, mainly after the assessee has filed a written submission to the show cause notice. Personal hearings may be allowed for the assessee, preferably through video conference. If Video Conference is not technically feasible, personal hearings may be conducted in a designated area in the Income-Tax Office. The hearing proceedings may be recorded. Given this Circular, the defence raised, or the justification offered in paragraph 6(e) of the Respondents' affidavit cannot be accepted.
11. In this case, though the assessment order was appealable, we have entertained this petition because a case of complete failure of natural justice was made out. No personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, and such denial was not for valid reasons.
On the above short ground, we set aside the impugned assessment order dated 26 March 2024 and remand the matter to the concerned Respondent to dispose of the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner following the law and after granting the Petitioner a personal hearing. The concerned Respondent should complete the assessment proceedings within three months of uploading this order on this Court's website. Now that we have set aside the impugned assessment order dated 26 March 2024, the consequential demand notice and penalty notice based on this order are also set aside. However, all contentions of all parties are left open for consideration of the Assessing Officer in the first instance.”
& 2606/PUN/2024 [A] 13.1 Thus, in the case of the assessee, the Assessee had requested for Virtual Hearing which was denied by the ld.CIT(E), respectfully following the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision, we direct ld.CIT(E) to provide opportunity of Virtual Hearing to the Assessee. Therefore, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purpose.
Since we have already set-aside the order of ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication in above, therefore, our order therein passed shall apply mutatis mutandis for the present appeal too. Accordingly, the order passed under section 12A of the Act is also set-aside to the file of ld.CIT(Exemption). Accordingly, grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. & 2606/PUN/2024 [A]
16. In the result, appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purpose.
To sum up, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 September, 2025.