Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2019-20 was rejected by the CPC. This rejection was upheld by the CIT(A) on the grounds that the assessee had changed its objects/activities and failed to provide fresh registration details under Section 12AA.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentation to prove that there was no change in its objects/activities. However, considering it might be a case of clerical error, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's rectification application was rightly rejected due to failure to furnish fresh registration details and whether the change in objects/activities was properly established.
Sections Cited
154, 12A, 12AA, 11, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 511/JPR/2025
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
On 04.02.2021, an application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), submitted by the appellant-applicant to Centralized Processing Centre (in short “CPC”), as regards an intimation as regards the assessment year 2019-20, came to be rejected.
Rectification application was rejected due to the following grounds:- “ As per details furnished in the return in schedule part A general other details assessee is registered u/s 12A and has changed during the year the objects/activities on the basis of which registration was granted. Assessee has M/s Pardaya Memorial Trust, Jaipur not furnished details of fresh registration under section 12AA. Hence as per provisions of section 12A(1)(1)(ac) exemption u/s 11 i.e. sr. No. 4(i) and 4viii in schedule part BT is not allowed”
3. Feeling aggrieved by the above said order dated 04.02.2021, passed on the application u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide order dated 09.01.2025.
4. That is how, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal.
Arguments heard. File perused. Contentions 6. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the reason for rejection of rectification application was that the assessee registered u/s 12A of the Act, was found to have changed its objects/activities during the years, but failed to furnish details of fresh registration. In this regard, Ld. AR has referred to page 7 of the ITR for the assessment year 2019-20, and specifically to serial No. C(i) and (ii)(a), and pointed out that as against the first mentioned column word “yes” came to be typed by mistake, even though there was no change in the objects/activities during the year, on the basis of which approval/registration was granted.
M/s Pardaya Memorial Trust, Jaipur As regards the above referred second column, Ld. AR has submitted that since in this column the deed of registration of the applicant trust was mentioned as 01.04.2001, it could be gathered that there was no change in the objects/activities of the trust, and as such, the department was not justified in disallowing exemption u/s 11 i.e. serial No. 4(i) and 4(viii) schedule part B of the ITR. Discussion 7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), record reveals that four notices u/s 250 of the Act, dated 23.01.2024, 25.07.2024, 12.09.2024 and 02.01.2025 were issued to the assessee-appellant. As observed by Learned CIT(A), at page 2 of the impugned order, the assessee-appellant did not submit any response to these four notices. In the course of arguments, Ld. DR for the department has referred to the factum of non compliance with the four notices and submitted that in the given situation, Learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order u/s 154 of the Act. Ld. DR has further submitted that neither before CPC nor Learned CIT(A) , the assessee submitted any document to prove to their satisfaction that actually no change in the objects/activities of the Trust had M/s Pardaya Memorial Trust, Jaipur taken place during the year, and that it was only a case of mistake in filling column (i) of serial ‘C’ of the ITR 8. Ld. AR for the appellant admits that no document, including affidavit of the rectification of the trust was submitted before the department or before Learned CIT(A) particularly to satisfy that actually no change had taken place in the objects / activities of the trust during the year, and that in case matter is remitted, the appellant would submit documents to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer on the issue involved.
In view of the above discussion, we deem it a fit case to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee to find out, if any change in the objects/activities, during the financial year 2018-19, took place or it is a case of no change in the objects/activities of the trust, and if so, its effect. Of course, the Assessing Officer shall provide an opportunity to the applicant of being heard to the assessee. Result 10. As a result, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee to find out, if any change in the M/s Pardaya Memorial Trust, Jaipur objects/activities, during the financial year 2018-19, took place or it is a case of no change in the objects/activities of the trust, and if so, its effect. Having regard to the fact that the assessee-appellant remained non complaint before Learned CIT(A) despite issuance of four notices, we deem it a fit case to impose costs on the appellant trust. Accordingly appellant trust to deposit of costs Rs. 2500/- in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. The applicant trust to deposit costs and produce receipt before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings there, on remand. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ MkWa- ehBk yky ehuk ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (Dr. M.L. MEENA) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10 /07/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- M/s Pardaya Memorial Trust, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO(e), Ward-1, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत