Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shivsiddhi Education Society, applied for registration under Section 12A r.w.s 12AB and 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application, citing misrepresentation of facts and the trust not being registered prior to 01.04.2021.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects were charitable and its activities, running an approved school, were genuine and aligned with its objectives. The CIT(E) had not presented any evidence of violation of law or non-genuineness of activities.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12A/12AB and 80G(5) by the CIT(E) was justified on the grounds of misrepresentation and lack of prior registration.
Sections Cited
12A, 12AA, 12AB, 80G(5), 2(15)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s.12A r.w.s 12AB and 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) both dated 20.09.2024respectively. 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
1. The officer wrongly rejected our application even though we were already registered earlier under Section 12AA.
We, Shivsiddhi Education Society, had already received registration under Section 12AA on 28/05/2018. This registration was valid and in force before 01/04/2021 As per the law, we were eligible to get registration under the new Section 12AB. The officer did not consider this important fact.
We had submitted Form 10AC (provisional registration) properly and on time.
We submitted a copy of Form 10AC while applying in Form 10AB. When the officer asked again in the second notice dated 03/09/2024, we submitted the same Form 10AC again on 11/09/2024. Still, the officer said that we did not provide it and passed the rejection order.
3. A small typing mistake in our first reply was misunderstood.
In our reply to the first notice, by mistake, we wrote that we were "not registered" before 01/04/2021- but it was just a typing error. We meant to say we were "registered." This was clarified in our second reply, and we also submitted the old registration certificate. But this clarification was ignored.
4. All required documents and replies were submitted honestly.
We gave proper replies to both notices from the department (dated 10/05/2024 and 03/09/2024), along with all necessary documents. We did not hide any facts or provide any wrong information.
5. The officer passed the order without properly considering our replies and without giving a fair opportunity.
ITA Nos.1774 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A]
It seems that our second reply and clarification were not properly considered before passing the rejection order. This is against natural justice and fair procedure.
6. Our trust is genuinely involved in educational and charitable activities.
Shivsiddhi Education Society is a registered charitable trust working in the field of education. We are not a commercial organization. We follow all tax rules sincerely and have been allowed exemption under Section 11 for past years.
7. There was no misrepresentation or concealment of facts.
The officer rejected the application as if there was some false or misleading information. But this is not true. We acted in good faith and with full transparency throughout the process.
8. The rejection is unfair, harsh, and not in the spirit of the law.
The rejection is based on minor technical issues and overlooks the true intent and compliance record of the Trust.
9. We request that our case be heard fairly and our registration be granted as per law.
We hope for kind consideration of the facts, documents, and clarifications submitted. The rejection should be set aside, and registration under Section 12AB should be allowed.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[ld.CIT(E)] has denied assessee‟s claim for registration under section 12A of the Act, r.w.s 12AB of the Act. In this case, Assessee has filed an 3 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A] application in Form No.10AB of the Act, on 08.03.2024 for registration under section 12A r.w.s 12AB of the Act. Assessee had filed necessary documents along with the application. Ld.CIT(E) rejected assessee‟s application vide his order dated 20.09.2024. The relevant paragraph no.6 & 7 are reproduced here as under : “6. On verification of the submission made by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee has obtained regular registration under section 12AB of the Act under clause (i) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. However, the assessee in its reply dated 11/09/2024 has admitted the fact that the trust was not registered u/s 12A prior to 01/04/2021. Therefore, it seems that the assessee has obtained the said registration by mis- representation of facts and the said registration is not a valid registration.
In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected and the regular registration granted on 02/10/2021 under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 2.1 Thus, the ld.CIT(E) rejected assessee‟s claim only on one ground that Assessee was not registered u/s.12A prior to 01.04.2021 and alleged that there was misrepresentation of facts.
We have studied the paper book filed by the Assessee. During the proceedings, ld.AR pleaded that Assessee had filed all the necessary documents before ld.CIT(E). Ld.AR filed copy of e- Acknowledgment to demonstrate the documents filed before ld.CIT(E). 4
ITA Nos.1774 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A]
On perusal of the e-Acknowledgement filed by ld.AR, it is noted that Assessee had filed following documents on 11.09.2024.
4.1 Copy of provisional registration u/s.12AB as under : & 1786/PUN/2025 [A] 4.2 Copy of Registration u/s.12A dated 28.05.2018 as under :
ITA Nos.1774 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A]
On perusal of the e-Acknowledgment, it is noted that Assessee had filed following documents on 11.06.2024 : Trust Registration Certificate Aadhar Card and PAN Card of Trustees Activity Report Affiliation Documents Bank Statements for Three Years Undertaking Computation of Income for last three years Rent Certificate Self-certified copies of Form No.10AC 5.1 Thus, it is eminently clear from the e-Acknowledgment filed by the Assessee that Assessee had filed all necessary documents before ld.CIT(E).
It is sad to note that ld.CIT(E) has blatantly made a false statement in the order u/s.12A r.w.s 12AB dated 20.09.2024.
7. We have noted that Assessee was duly registered under section 12AA vide the Certificate No.PN/CIT(Exemp.)/Tech/12AA/Pune Rg/767/181/2017-18/1128 dated 28.05.2018.
Copy of the said certificate has been filed by the Assessee in the paper book and it is also noted that copy of the said certificate was filed before the ld.CIT(E).
ITA Nos.1774 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A]
It is noted that Assessee is running a School which is duly approved by Education Officer, Satara District. Copy of the said approval was filed by the Assessee before the ld.CIT(E). The copy of the said approval is scanned and reproduced as under :
Ld.CIT(E) has not bothered to read any of the documents filed by the Assessee and erroneously rejected application stating incorrect facts. 8
ITA Nos.1774 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A]
After studying the documents filed by the Assessee before the ld.CIT(E), it is noted that Assessee is running a school which is duly approved by Competent Authorities of the Maharashtra State Government. Running a duly approved school is a Charitable Activity as defined in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
11.1 Ld.CIT(E) has not contradicted these facts. No violation of any other law applicable has been brought on record.
11.2 Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced here under : Procedure for fresh registration.65 12AB. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on receipt of an application made under clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, shall,— (a) where the application is made under sub-clause (i) of the said clause, pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution for a period of five years; (b) where the application is made under sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) 66[or item (B) of sub-clause (vi)] of the said clause,— (i) call for such documents or information from the trust or institution or make such inquiries as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about— (A) the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution; and (B) the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects; (ii) after satisfying himself about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities under item (A) and compliance of the requirements under item (B), of sub-clause (i),— (A) pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution for a period of five years; or 9
ITA Nos.1774 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A]
67[(B) if he is not so satisfied, pass an order in writing,— (I) in a case referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or sub- clause (v) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration; (II) in a case referred to in sub-clause (iv) or in item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] 11.3 Thus, as per the Section 12AB of the Act, the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) has to satisfy about Genuineness of the Activities, Charitableness of the Objects and Non violation of any other law applicable.
11.4 Thus, we have to consider Objects and Activities as mentioned in the Section 12AB of the Act.
After considering the totality of facts of the case, documents filed before the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), we are convinced that Assessee‟s objects are Charitable in nature as defined in section 2(15) of the Act, the activity of running an approved school is as per the objects, Genuineness of activity is established by the documents, the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) has not brought on record any violation of any applicable law, hence for all the reasons and facts discussed in earlier paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the Assessee is eligible for Registration u/s.12A r.w.s. 12AB of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the ld.Commissioner 10 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A] of Income Tax(Exemption)-Pune to Grant the Registration to the Assessee.
We derive support from the Order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Bengaluru in the case of Marine Drishti and Costal Foundation Vs. ITO(Exemptions) [2025] 177 taxmann.com 433, wherein the ITAT after verifying facts directed the ld.CIT(E) to grant Registration u/s.12A r.w.s 12AB of the Act.
13.1 ITAT Bangalore in the case of Marine Drishti and Costal Foundation Vs. ITO(Exemptions) [2025] 177 taxmann.com 433 vide order dated 31.07.2025 has held as under : Quote“11.4 In the present case, there is not even a whisper about any non-genuineness of the activities carried on by the assessee trust. The only allegation by the ld. CIT(E) is that the assessee had not commenced its activities towards the object of the Trust which in our opinion is not true by taking into consideration the Activity report, photographs & financials along with provisional produced before us. We are also of the considered opinion that it is not the quantum of expenditure which is relevant for the purpose of granting registration but in fact the genuineness of the activity of the trust in accordance with the object of the trust is relevant for granting registration. In the present case, it is a fact that the assessee had already commenced its activity towards the attainment of the object as the assessee trust had conducted the training programme which comes under the framework of the Annual Lifesaver Revalidation Programme in the presence of 11
ITA Nos.1774 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A]
Deputy conservator of Forests. Since it was the inception stage of its operation, the assessee was not able to spend towards the large scale activity. Therefore, considering the totality of the fact of the case, as the assessee had already commenced its activities which is also not held to be non-genuine by the ld. CIT(E), we are inclined to allow the appeal filed by the assessee & direct the ld. CIT(E) to grant registration u/s 12AB of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.
12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”Unquote.
In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
15. This is an appeal against the order under section 80G(5) of the Act, dated 20.09.2024. Ld.CIT(E) has rejected assessee‟s application for registration under section 80G(5) of the Act, only on ground that provision of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act has been rejected vide order dated 20.09.2024.
15.1 Since we have already directed the ld.CIT(E) to grant registration under section 12AB r.w.s. 12A of the Act, in above, the Assessee is also eligible for registration u/s.80G(5) of the Act, as ld.Commissioner of Income tax(Exemption) has not brought on record any other reason for not granting registration u/s.80G(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(E) is directed to grant registration u/s.80G(5) of the Act. 12
ITA Nos.1774 & 1786/PUN/2025 [A]
To sum up, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Condonation of Delay : 17. There was a delay of 237 days in filing appeal. Assessee filed Affidavit of trustee and copy of Medical certificates. We are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Hence, the Delay is condoned. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24 September, 2025.