MAROL BAITULMAL WELFARRE CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The Ld. AR assailed the rejection, inter-alia, on the ground that the assessee’s activities were charitable in nature and Ld. CIT(E) erred in treating the application as infructuous in view of the fact that earlier application filed in the year 2012 was rejected. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee did not carry out any of the main objects.

Upon perusal of impugned order, we find that the assessee filed registration application u/s 12AA in Form No.10A on 18/02/2019. However, the assessee failed to specify that similar application filed in the year 2012 was rejected. Consequently, Ld. CIT(E), in para 3.4, concluded that the application was infructuous and hence, rejected.

The Ld. CIT(E) also proceeded to examine the activities of the assessee trust vis-à-vis its main objects and found that 90% of the receipts were from medical and related activities. However, running dispensary was not part of assessee’s main objects. The actual activities could not be linked with any of the main objects and therefore, the application was to be rejected.

After due consideration of material on record, we are of the opinion that merely because the application was rejected in the year 2012, the aforesaid fact alone should not have been the basis of rejection of application. The Ld. AR has submitted that the activities of the assessee trust are in accordance with its main objects and therefore, the registration ought to have been granted. Considering the said plea, the bench deems it fit to restore the matter of registration back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for re-adjudication after considering the activities vis-à-vis main objects of the assessee trust. Needless to add that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee, who, in turn, is directed to substantiate the registration application. The mere fact that earlier application was rejected in 2012, shall be ignored.