Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, National Education Society Sillod, applied for registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the applications, citing alleged failure to prove the genuineness of activities and non-compliance with certain provisions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to explain the discrepancies and demonstrate the genuineness of its activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded for denovo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration and approval without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to prove the genuineness of its activities and comply with requirements.
Sections Cited
12AA, 80G(5), 12A(1)(ac), 36A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are directed against the separate orders dated 17.10.2024 and 04.10.2024 framed by CIT(Exemption), Pune denying grant of regular registration u/s.12AA and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act.
So far as the impugned order for denial of grant of registration u/s.12AA of the Act, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in accordance with the law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)) erred in rejecting the application filed u/s.12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) and further erred in cancelling the provisional registration granted earlier.
2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in accordance with the law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)] erred in rejecting the application filed u/s.12A(1)(ac) (iii) of The Act, on alleged grounds of failure of satisfaction on account of genuineness of activities of The Appellant Trust and also on account of non-compliance to requirement of any other law for the time being in force by the Trust.
3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in accordance with the law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)) erred in holding that assessee failed to prove genuineness of activities of The Appellant Trust in spite of submission of voluminous details which were examined by the commissioner and no doubts were communicated to the Appellant.
4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in accordance with the law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)) erred in holding that there is violation of provisions of section 36A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1960, although the said provisions are not attracted in the given circumstances.
5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in accordance with the law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E) erred in arriving adverse findings without giving an opportunity to Appellant to explain the matter which is in contraventions of provisions of natural justice.
Facts of the case are that the appellant has filed application in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) on 15.04.2024. The Ld. CIT(E) in order to verify the genuineness of activities and to ascertain the fulfilment of conditions for granting registration u/s.12AA of the Act, has issued a notice through ITBA portal on 06.06.2024 calling upon the appellant to upload certain information/clarification to which the appellant filed the requisite details. The appellant furnished the requisite details. Thereafter, another notice dated 03.10.2024 was issued to the appellant pointing out certain discrepancies in the details so filed and the assessee has made compliance to said notice as well on 10.10.2024.
In the instant appeal, we vouched that, the Ld. CIT(E) after considering the preliminary submission had called for an additional evidence and complying documents inter-alia, copy of approval u/s.36A under Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 from the Charity Commissioner etc. and the Ld. CIT(E) rejected to grant 12AA registration to the appellant trust presuming that the appellant trust could have obtained ex-post facto permission from the Charity Commissioner, which in our opinion is not proper. Thus, the action of the Ld. CIT(E) suffered from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to refute the rejection vis- à-vis to comply with the requirements sought therein.
Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(E) has not given adequate opportunity before drawing adverse inference about the genuineness of activities and the copies of approval from the Charity Commissioner u/s.36A under Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950.
After hearing both the sides and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the assessee, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for denovo adjudication according reasonable opportunity to refute the rejection vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought. Appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(E). It should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.
Since we have remanded the issue of grant of registration to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit the issue of grant of approval u/s.80G(5) as well to the file of ld.CIT(E), being consequential, for denovo adjudication.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 25th day of April, 2025.