Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant trust filed applications for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(B) and approval u/s 80G(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected both applications, citing lack of evidence for the genuineness of activities and the inability to grant 80G approval without 12AB registration.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have discussed all evidence submitted by the appellant, even if it was limited to one activity. The Tribunal also noted that it was unclear if all requested documents were provided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) rightly rejected the application for registration/approval without considering all submitted documents and providing adequate opportunity for hearing?
Sections Cited
12A, 12AB, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, Judicial Member.
This common order is to dispose of the above captioned both appeals, as common issue based on same facts is involved , and both appeals have been argued simultaneously.
Arguments heard. Files perused.
As per record, vide order dated 27.11.2024, Learned CIT(E) rejected two applications of the appellant-appellant i.e. one u/s 12A(1)(ac)(B) of the & 112/JPR/2025 Ayaansh Trust, Jaipur. Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) submitted on 16.07.2024, and another application u/s 80G(iv)(B) of the Act.
First mentioned application has been rejected on the following ground:-
Not furnished evidence of genuineness of activities.
5. Second mentioned application came to be dismissed as a consequence of dismissal of the first mentioned application, on the following ground:- Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB. Contentions
6. Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that entire material was made available to Learned CIT(E), but, even then the main application seeking registration u/s 12AB came to be rejected on the ground that the appellant-applicant had not furnished evidence of genuineness of activities. Accordingly, the prayer is that impugned orders be set aside.
7. Para 2.4 of the impugned order, relating to the rejection of the application u/s 12AB, contains following observations made by Learned CIT(E):-
& 112/JPR/2025 Ayaansh Trust, Jaipur. “i) The applicant has not furnished details of activities carried during the F.Y. 2021-22, 2022-23 except one activity to help of elderly parents and wives of Army person during second wave of Corona Pandemic. ii) On perusal of I&E account for the F.Y. 31.03.2022, it is found that total donation received during the year of Rs.66,000/- and claimed expenses of Rs.46,410/- as Programme Expenses and Rs.5540/- other expenses. In support of claim of expenses, the applicant has submitted only copy of cheques issued to beneficiaries totalling to Rs.24,500/- and no further details of activity details bill vouchers, photos has been submitted. iii) Further, as per the reply it s submitted that all amount of donation has been received during F.Y. 2020-21, 20:21-22 and 2022-23 from Col. Vijay Chaudhary. As per the I&E A/c for the year 31.03.2023 total donation received of Rs.45,000/- and claimed expenses of Rs.35,600/- as other expenses, however, no details of activity bill vouchers, photos has been provided by the applicant. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is held that as per the reply/documents submitted the applicant’s activities are non-genuine thus application for registration u/s 12A is liable to be rejected.”
Ld. AR for the appellant is right in submitting that even if the applicant society carried out only one activity to help elderly parents and wives of Army personnel, during second wave of Corona Pandemic, it could not be made the sole ground for rejection of the application.
As noticed above, Learned CIT(E) observed that no bills/vouchers or photographs were submitted. In this regard, Ld. AR has presented here a paper book, while submitting that all documents contained in it, were made available to Learned CIT(E).
When as per certificate appended to the paper book Index submitted before this Appellate Tribunal, copies of documents relating to charitable & 112/JPR/2025 Ayaansh Trust, Jaipur. activities were submitted before Learned CIT(E), such entire evidence was required to be discussed while disposing of the two applications. In para 2.3, Learned CIT(E) specified details/information/documents required from the applicant as per show cause notice dated 07.11.2024. However, in the paper book, we do not find copy of any bills/voucher. In view of the copies submitted before this Appellate Tribunal in the form of paper book (from page 4 to 12), it cannot be said that the entire information/details/documents, as desired vide show cause notice dated 07.11.2024 were made available to Learned CIT(E).
In the given situation, keeping in view the issue involved, and in the interest of justice, we deem it a fit case to restore the matter to Learned CIT(E) so as to afford to the appellant another opportunity of being heard, and to dispose of the two applications afresh. Result 12. In view of the above findings, both appeals are disposed of, for statistical purpose, and while setting aside the impugned orders, both applications submitted before Learned CIT(E) are restored to his files with direction for disposal, in accordance with law, after affording to the applicant another opportunity of being heard.
& 112/JPR/2025 Ayaansh Trust, Jaipur. Copy of the common order be also placed in the connected appeal file. Files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/08/2025.