PRINISH FOUNDATION,GURGAON vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ['CIT(Exemptions)'], rejecting application for registration of trust filed under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law.

2. That the CIT(Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in leveling false/ baseless allegations and relying upon irrelevant material/ fact to justify rejection of application for registration filed under section 12AB of the Act, without Prinish Foundation vs. CIT(E) considering evidence and documents submitted by the appellant and affording due opportunity to rebut the alleged conclusions drawn in the order. 2.1 That the CIT(Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in rejecting application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 12AB of the Act allegedly holding that "there is a mismatch between volume of spending and the visual documentation of charitable activities undertaken by the appellant". 2.2 That the CIT(Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that "there is repeated structuring of invoices, non-commensuration of the expenses incurred with the activity conducted, standardized expense heads, taken together paint a picture of orchestrated documentation rather than organically conducted charitable activity." 2.3 That the CIT(Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in considering only sample invoices of vendors submitted during the course of hearing and selectively reproducing in the impugned order to undermine the credibility of supporting invoices and conclude that there is repeated structuring of invoices. 2.4 That the CIT(Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in considering one time transaction of trading of raw honey of Rs. 9,18,000 undertaken in financial year 2021-22 by the appellant, even before seeking provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act, to conclude that the activities of the appellant are predominantly commercial in character. 2.5 That the CIT(Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in concluding that the expenditure incurred by the appellant are in genuine as there is repetition of sub-heads of expenditure mention in various utilization certificates; not appreciating that the utilization certificates were issued by independent Chartered Accountant who verify the accounts and issue certificates in their own standard format. 2.6 That the CIT(Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in selectively perusing the documents submitted by the appellant to allegedly conclude that the activities undertaken by the appellant are in genuine; without referring to the evidence in form of photographs submitted to corroborate the actual charitable events undertaken by the appellant. 2.7 Without prejudice, the CIT(Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in also rejecting provisional registration granted under section 12AB of the Act for the preceding years, without appreciating that the rejection of registration could, if at all, be ordered prospectively and not retrospectively. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”