M/S. K.H.BAPUJI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions),Bangalore [in short CIT(E)] dated 16.09.2019 passed under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of Income Tax Act,1961 (in short of the Act) denying the registration sought by the assessee under section 12A(1)(1) of the Act.

Ground No. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee trust states that the order of learned CIT(E) under section 12AA(1)(b)(iii) dated 16.09.2016 refusing to register the trust under section 12A of the K.H. Bapuji Memorial Education Trust, Mandya v. CIT(E)-Bangalore/ I.T.A.No.2220 /BANG//2019/A.Y.:19-20 Page 2 of 5 Act is against the appellant and is opposed to law , equity , weight of evidence, probabilities facts and circumstances of the case and Ld. CIT(E) is not justified in refusing the trust under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not complied the requirement without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant and without appreciating that the object of the trust are charitable in nature and that the appellant has filed all details called for by the Ld. CIT(E) Bangalore. Hence, allow the appeal of the appellant justice rendered.

Succinctly, facts are the that the assessee Trust had been founded under the Deed of Trust dated 15.10.2015 and letter was amended on 30.03.2019 with object for imparting education by establishing schools , colleges etc. at Mandya. The assessee has filed an application for registration under section 12AA of the Act on 30.03.2019 before CIT (E) Bangalore in Form No. 10A. The CIT (E) vide letter dated 05.09.2019 has asked the assessee to furnish certain information and clarification by 11.09.2019 on the 8 points mentioned in the said letter. However, on given date neither the assessee nor any representative attended. Therefore, the CIT (E) viewed that on receipt of application or registration under section 12AA, the CIT (E) has to K.H. Bapuji Memorial Education Trust, Mandya v. CIT(E)-Bangalore/ I.T.A.No.2220 /BANG//2019/A.Y.:19-20 Page 3 of 5 satisfy himself about object of the institution and genuineness of its activities. The Hon`ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ganjam Nagappa And Sons Trust v. DIT (E) 259 ITR 59 (Karnataka) held that exemption or renewal is not automatic in character. Therefore, CIT (E) held that the trust is not interested in processing this application and law assists those who are vigilant and not sleep over their rights as per principle embedded in the well-known dictum “Vigilantus non dormantibusjura-subvenium”. In view of such situation and in absence of relevant details the application under section 12AA was rejected for non-compliance of information as called for.

Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that only communication dated 05.09.2019 was received by the assessee for calling details by 11.09.2019, which could not be complied with by 11.09.2019, as the time granted was very short. Thereafter, no further, communication was received by the assessee from CIT(E). However, the appellant vide letter dated 24.09.2019 (PB-37-40) and letter dated 25.09.2019 (PB-40 to 49) sent the required details by speed post making the compliance. However, the same could not be considered as the CIT(E) has already passed an order on 16.09.2019 K.H. Bapuji Memorial Education Trust, Mandya v. CIT(E)-Bangalore/ I.T.A.No.2220 /BANG//2019/A.Y.:19-20 Page 4 of 5 rejecting the registration. Thus, we are of the opinion that the CIT(E) has not allowed proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee may be due to time limit for passing order was expiring on 30.09.2019. Therefore, it was requested before us that the assessee might be allowed one more opportunity of being heard in the matter.

Per contra, learned CIT(D.R.) supported the order of the CIT(E).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the CIT (E) has denied the registration under section 12AA of the Act, as the necessary details were not filed in time limit prescribed. However, we observe that Ld. CIT (E) has allowed very short time and not given any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We find that the assessee has filed details vide letter dated 24.09.2019 and 25.09.2019, but these could not be considered as the order was passed on 16.09.2019, thus, these details were not available before the CIT(E). Thus, in our opinion, the CIT(E) has not allowed proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the application under section 12AA of the Act. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the matter of registration under section 12AA is restored to the file of K.H. Bapuji Memorial Education Trust, Mandya v. CIT(E)-Bangalore/ I.T.A.No.2220 /BANG//2019/A.Y.:19-20 Page 5 of 5 the Ld. CIT(E) for examination the basic facts and pass afresh order in the light of details filed by the assessee and after allowing sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee has at liberty to file further details if need be and desired by the Ld. CIT(E).

This appeal allowed and is set-aside for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open Court on 22-01.2020.