SAIDATTAVIKAS SAIDHAM CHARITABLE TRUST,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

5) The assessee has already submitted all the requisite details as and when required by the commissioner exemption. The assessee has always been co- operative with the department.

6) It is humbly requested that the Commissioner Exemption has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee under section 12(1)(ac)(vi), it is further requested that the cancellation of provisional registration was not valid. The cancellation of provisional registration is not just and fair. No opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee before cancellation of provisional registration, this is beyond the principle of natural justice.

7) The rejection of provisional registration granted under section 12(1) (ac)(vi) to the assessee is clear violation of principle of natural justice, therefore it is humbly requested to quash the order passed by Commissioner Exemption and grant us the registration under section 12(1)(ac) (vi) as the objectives of the trust are for betterment of each and every creature irrespective of caste, creed, etc.

8) The honourable Commissioner Exemption has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration, without considering the fact that the assessee has already submitted all the requisite details as and when required by the honourable Commissioner, Exemption, but the Commissioner has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration.’’ U/s 80G of I.T. Act, 1961 ‘’1) The trust was established with an objective to create spiritual awareness among public, to create sound spirituality among every person and creature, and to educate people, to conduct bhandara, to maintain & construct gaushala etc. yoga and yoga centre in modern requirement, it is also recognised by the UNO, these type objects are result oriented activities are activated, etc. The copy of trust deed is enclosed. 2) It is further requested that the trust is a charitable trust established with the objective of welfare of general public, it is engaged in the development of meditation centres to educate people of all caste and creed about spirituality. 3) It is humbly requested that the trust maintain regular books of accounts and get them duly audited, which can be verified from income tax portal it is further requested that the copy of last 2 years financials and audit report is enclosed. 4) All the Income which is derived by the trust are through the donation are utilized for the welfare of general public, and other objectives of the trust. 5) It is humbly requested that all the donation receipts are received through online mode only, which can be verified from Form 10 BD filled at income tax portal and there utilization is as per the charitable objectives of the trust and for the upliftment of the society as whole, which can be verified from the financials and audit report of the trust.

6) The assessee has already submitted all the requisite details as and when required by the commissioner exemption. The assessee has always been co- operative with the department. 7) It is humbly requested that the Commissioner Exemption has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee under section 80G(5)(iv), it is further requested that the cancellation of provisional registration was not valid. The cancellation of provisional registration is not just and fair. No opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee before cancellation of provisional registration, this is beyond the principle of natural justice. 8) The rejection of provisional registration granted under section 80G(5)(iv) to the assessee is clear violation of principle of natural justice, therefore it is humbly requested to quash the order passed by Commissioner Exemption and grant us the registration under section80G(5)(iv) as the objectives of the trust are for betterment of each and every creature irrespective of caste, creed, etc. 9) The honourable Commissioner Exemption has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration, without considering the fact that the assessee has already submitted all the requisite details as and when required by the honourable commissioner exemption, but the commissioner has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out for hearing. However, the Bench feels to dispose of the appeals of the assessee ex-parte based on the materials available on record. 3.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals, it is noticed that there is delay of 36 days in filing both the appeals for which the Chairman of the Trust by filing applications for condonation of delay in connection with the above appeals submitted that due to some inevitable reasons the managing trustees and the A.R. of the trust were out of State due to medical reasons during the month of Jan and Feb. 2025 and the order of the ld.CIT(E) was served later upon the assessee. Thus this delay took place in filing both the appeals. 3.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected for such delay in filing the appeals but submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 3.3 The Bench heard the ld.DR and perused the applications of the Chairman of the Trust and found that there is some merit in the case. Thus the delay of 36 days in both the appeals are condoned. 4.1 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’03. In compliance to the notice(s), the assessee has not furnished any reply, therefore, the activities of the applicant could not prove. Accordinglh, the applicant application for registration u/s 12AB, applied u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) is hereby rejected.

4. Further 12AB (1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfiedhas to pass order rejecting such applicationand also cancelling its earlier registration. Thus, it is clarified that applicant's provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.11.2023 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also cancelled.’’ 4.2 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of recognition u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’03. In compliance to the notice(s), the assessee has not furnished any reply, therefore, the activities of the applicant could not prove. Accordingly, the applicant application for approval u/s 80G, applied u/s 80G(5)(iii) is hereby rejected.