ASHABE SUFFAH CHARITABLE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)-JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1130/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 March 2025AY 2024-256 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration under Section 12AB on the grounds that the assessee had not provided details of beneficiaries of religious education for the financial year 2023-24. The assessee's authorized representative argued that they were deprived of an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E). The Tribunal observed that show cause notices were issued, and the assessee replied in part. Considering that the defects were curable, the Tribunal felt that the assessee should be allowed one more opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E). The Tribunal decided not to go into the merits of the case but emphasized that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to produce all relevant papers. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashabe Suffah Charitable Trust, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, challenging an order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed the application on 17.02.2024. The CIT(E) issued notices on 23.04.2024 and 03.08.2024, to which the assessee responded. However, the CIT(E) found discrepancies and rejected the application, citing non-genuineness of activities and lack of details regarding beneficiaries of religious education for the financial year 2023-24. The assessee sought to submit additional evidence, including a supplementary trust deed, and requested a personal hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of non-genuineness of activities and lack of details regarding beneficiaries. Assessee's contentions: - The rejection order was not just and proper on the facts and in law. - The assessee sought recall of the rejection order and direction to allow registration. - The assessee requested a personal hearing. - The assessee sought to admit a supplementary trust deed as additional evidence, explaining that it was executed after the rejection order to correct defects and was filed with the Devsthan Department. - The assessee argued that the CIT(E) passed the order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard, especially considering the additional evidence. Revenue's contentions: - The Learned Deputy Commissioner relied on the order of the Learned CIT(E). - Various opportunities were granted, but the assessee did not file details in time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Hearing: 25/02/2025Pronounced: 21/03/2025

Ashabe Suffah Charitable Trust cuke The CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. C-335, Shahid Indra Jyoti Nagar, Vs. Kachchi Pasti Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKTA5048A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.K. Kabra, C.A. (Thr. V.C.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: ShriP.P. Meena, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :25/02/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The present appeal is filed by the assessee challenge the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [herein after referred to as “CIT(E)”] dated 09.08.2024 thereby rejecting the registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short “Act”).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(E) was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in rejecting the application of the Trust for registration u/s 12A.

Ashabe Suffah Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) 2. 1 The rejection order may be recalled and registration u/s 12A may be directed to be allowed to the appellant. 2.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 2.3 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeals.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed online application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 17.02.2024. A letter/notice dated 23.04.2024 was issued at the e-mail/address provided in the application requiring the assessee- applicant to submit certain documents/explanations by 03.05.2024, in response reply filed by assessee-applicant. The reply was thoroughly examined and found some discrepancies. These discrepancies were conveyed to the assessee-applicant vide show cause letter dated 03.08.2024 wherein date of hearing was given 09.08.2024, in response reply filed by the assessee-applicant. Above reply filed by the assessee-applicant was thoroughly examined and not found tenable. Since it is limitation matter, therefore the case is decided on the basis of material available on record. While dealing with the application for registration the ld. CIT(E) has passed the order by observing as under:-  Non-Genuineness of activities.

Ashabe Suffah Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) 4. Aggrieved from the above order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has preferred an appeal before us. To support the grounds so raised the ld. AR of the assessee has service of a prayer for admission of additional evidence which reads as under:-

“The Registration application of the Appellant Trust was rejected for certain recitals in the Trust deed. The appellant Trust had made a supplementary Trust deed so as to correct and modify the deed so as to conform to the requirement for registration. The said SUPPLEMENTARY DEED is prepared after the receipt of the Rejection Order. Therefore, there was no occasion to submit the said supplementary deed before the CIT (E). To get the approval of the Devsthan Department, the said supplementary deed is also filed with the Devsthan Dept.

Considering the fact that the appellant was not aware of such legal defects and as soon as the TRUSTEES came to know about the same, the defects were removed by way of executing the Supplementary deed and also filing the same for the record of the DEVSTHAN VIBHAG at Jaipur it is humbly prayed and requested that the SUPPLEMENTARY DEED being a basic, germane and critical Document of the constitution of the TRUST and to decide the issue under hand, it may kindly be admitted as ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.”

4.1 The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper books in support of the contentions so raised. The index of the document submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee reads as under:- S# Particulars Page # 1. Copy of Trust deed 1-15 2. Copy of trust registration certificate issue by Devsthanam Dept. 16 3. Copy of supplementary trust deed 17-20 4. Copy of notice under section 23 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, issued by 21-22 Devsthanam Dept.

5.

Affidavit for the purpose of sec 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959. 23-24 Ashabe Suffah Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR for the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(E) has passed the order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance their arguments/submissions before the ld. CIT(E). considering the additional evidence so submitted.

6.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E) and submitted that various opportunities were granted but the assessee has not filed details in time.

7.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. The Bench noted from the order of the ld. CIT(E) that he has rejected the application of the assessee pertaining to registration of the society u/s12AB of the Act on the ground of that assessee has not given the details of beneficiaries of activity as asked. No details of students to whom religious education was given in the account for the financial year 2023-24 was not given. It is also pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he was deprived off availing adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in the application for registration/recognition. We note from the records available and show cause notice were issued by the ld. CIT(E) wherein the assessee Ashabe Suffah Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) replied in part on 04.08.2024. The defect notice being curable , assessee may be allowed one more opportunity of being heard. The Bench does not want to go into merit of the case but it is imperative that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). In this view of the matter, the Bench feels that the assessee should be given one more chance to contest the case before the ld. CIT(E) and the assessee is directed to produce all the relevant papers concerning the application so filed before the ld. CIT(E) to settle the dispute raised hereinabove.

8.

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/03/2025.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →