SHRI JAI JHULELAL TRUST,SATARA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act.

Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act on 29.06.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune through ITBA portal on 05.08.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification. The desired information was furnished by the assessee. On verification of said information furnished by the assessee, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies in the information furnished by the assessee and issued another notice on 26.11.2024. Not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by assessee in response to above notice, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 31.12.2021 u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not provided proper opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, the impugned order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. It was submitted that the last notice was issued on 26.11.2024 asking for various information and other details and the compliance was required to be made on or before 03.12.2024. It was submitted that lots of information was already furnished by the assessee and again various information was required through the above notice dated 26.11.2024 and only seven days were provided to the assessee to furnish the desired information. Due to paucity of time, the assessee could not comply in full with the above notice and certain information remained to be furnished before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. It was therefore contended before the Bench that if Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, he could have provided one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish required details since the application was not getting time barred within next 25 days. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune with a direction to provide at least one more opportunity to furnish the requisite documents/information as desired by him.