NEEM FOUNDATION TRUST,VADODARA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

A perusal of the above grounds reveals the solitary grievance of the assessee that the ld.CIT(E) without consideration of the detailed information and explanation filed by the assessee during the proceedings, rejected the application of the assessee for grant of registration under section 12AB of the Act.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had duly filed all the necessary documents and replies to the notices issued by the Revenue authorities. In support of this contention, the ld. counsel furnished a copy of the e-proceedings response acknowledgment no. 1016776371090224 & 1016868111090224, which clearly indicates that the assessee uploaded ten plus four documents, including the reply, trust deeds, audit reports, and other relevant materials, to enable the Commissioner to examine the assessee’s claim for trust registration.

However the ld. CIT(E) wrongly stated that no details were filed by the and accordingly concluded that he was not satisfied with the genuineness of the activities of the trust. Consequently, he rejected /Ahd/2024 3 the assessee’s application. He further submits that this action of the learned CIT(E) contravenes established principles of law, which mandate that an adjudicating authority must examine the material on record before reaching a conclusion and pass an order in accordance with the law. Since the order of the learned CIT(E) lacks judicial merit, it is liable to be set aside, and the matter requires fresh adjudication, considering the evidence available on record.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record, including the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT(E). From the impugned order and the material submitted before us by the assessee, it is evident that the assessee has furnished reply along with various supporting documents to substantiate its claim for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The index of the material submitted before us in the paper book, as well as before the learned CIT(E), has been reproduced above.

A careful examination of the same, it is apparent that the learned CIT(E) has not based his findings on a proper examination of and appreciation of the material and explanations submitted by the assessee. Instead, his conclusion appears to be based on generalized and unsubstantiated assumptions regarding the genuineness of the assessee’s activities, despite the supporting evidences provided. Such an approach runs contrary to the settled principles of law, which mandate a reasoned consideration of the material placed on record before arriving at an adverse conclusion.