CONFEDERATION FOR CONVERGENCE IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT,AKOLA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2806/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 July 2025AY 2025-26Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not pass a reasoned order and failed to consider the material submitted by the appellant. The rejection of the applications violated the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The appellant trust applied for regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected these applications, stating discrepancies and lack of response from the appellant. The appellant contended that they provided sufficient documentation and were not given adequate opportunity to explain.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G by the CIT(E) was based on a reasoned order and due consideration of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Nrupbahaddur &, Shri Akshay Khandale
For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are against the rejection of applications for regular registration u/s.12AB(1)(b)(ii) and approval u/s.80G of the Act respectively framed by ld.CIT(E) dated 26.10.2024.

2.

We shall first take up the appeal filed by the appellant trust in wherein it has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Commissioner failed to consider the extensive documentation submitted by the appellant, which included 1 financial statements, activity reports, and proof of charitable activities, thereby arriving at an erroneous conclusion. 2. Allegations of discrepancies in financial and operational data were based on an incorrect interpretation of records. The appellant has consistently adhered to its charitable objectives as demonstrated by verifiable evidence.

3.

The appellant was not afforded adequate opportunity to present explanations and additional evidence. The order was passed hastily without a thorough appreciation of the documents and responses submitted.”

3. Succinctly stated, the appellant is a charitable institution established with the object of improving rural livelihoods by promoting sustainable farming practices, organic farming, water conservation, empowering women etc. It has been granted provisional registration us/.12AB on 10.03.2022. Subsequently, the appellant trust applied for permanent registration by way of Form No. 10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act on 29.05.2024. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant, the ld.CIT (Exemption) issued notice through ITBA portal on 25.06.2024 requiring the appellant to upload certain information. In compliance, the appellant trust furnished the requisite details as called for. Thereafter, ld.CIT(E) issued another notice dated 15.10.2024 communicating the discrepancies in the details so filed and there was no response from the appellant’s side Eventually, ld. CIT (Exemption) vide the impugned order dated 26.10.2024 rejected the application filed by the appellant for registration of the trust u/s. 12AB of the Act observing that the appellant has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed that the appellant has nothing to say in the matter, thereby cancelled the provisional registration granted to the appellant on 10.03.2022. Now the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. On careful circumspection of the facts and the impugned order, we find that ld.CIT(Exemption) has not brought on record any finding or material analysis to substantiate how and in what manner the activities of the trust were not in accordance with the stated objectives nor has articulated which information was missing, despite the appellant furnishing a detailed reply along with supporting documents. Before us, it is claimed by the appellant that it has filed financial statements, activity report, proof of charitable activities before ld.CIT(Exemption but they have not been entertained and the evidences have not been taken in right perspective even after demonstrating the charitable activities. In light of these observations, we are of a firm conviction that the rejection by the Ld.CIT(Exemption) of the application filed by the appellant trust for permanent registration without passing a reasoned order violates the principles of natural justice. It will be apposite to observe that non-speaking, cryptic, and mechanical orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities are not sustainable in law. The Ld.CIT(Exemption) while disposing off the application filed by the appellant trust u/s.12AB of the Act was expected to pass a reasoned order and specific findings after considering the material on record.

5.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.10.2024 is hereby set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(Exemption) with a direction to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the appellant trust in the course of the set aside proceedings shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Appellant is at liberty to adduce all the required supporting documents/evidence substantiating the charitable activities.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant trust in is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.

7.

We shall now deal with the appeal filed by the appellant trust, wherein it has assailed the rejection of application for granting approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act by the CIT(Exemption).

8.

Succinctly stated, the appellant trust was granted provisional registration u/s.80G of the Act vide order dated 10.03.2022. Subsequently, the appellant trust applied for permanent registration and the same was rejected by the ld.CIT(Exemption) vide order dated 26.10.2024. Appellant filed application for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act which was declined by ld.CIT(Exemption).

9.

We find that the facts attending to the rejection of the application filed by the appellant trust for approval u/s.80G(5) also remain the same as were involved in its against the order of the CIT(Exemption) declining its registration u/s 12AB of the Act, therefore, our order therein passed shall apply mutatis mutandis for the present appeal too. Impugned order dated 26.10.2024 is hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the appellant trust in the course of the set aside proceedings shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and will remain at liberty to submit any further documents or explanations as may be required.

10.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 22nd day of July, 2025.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →