Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Pooja Foundation, appealed the rejection of its applications for registration under sections 12A(a)(ac)(vi) and 80G of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(E). The rejection was primarily due to the CIT(E)'s finding that the assessee had not commenced activities until the date of filing the application, and the claimed activity was not reflected in its bank account.
Held
The Tribunal, considering new evidence of activities undertaken by the assessee post-rejection and referencing a Supreme Court decision that 'activities' include proposed activities, found that the new documents could have a material bearing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matter back for a fresh, de novo consideration and adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of registration applications under Section 12A and 80G was justified due to non-commencement of activities. 2. Whether 'activities' for registration purposes include proposed activities.
Sections Cited
12A(a)(ac)(vi), 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. In the aforesaid twin appeals, the assessee has assailed rejection of registration applications as filed by the assessee seeking registration u/s 12A(a)(ac)(vi) and 80G of the Act. The impugned orders have been passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [CIT(A)] on 04.11.2025. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and placed on record various documents to demonstrate commencement of activities by the assessee-trust. The Ld. AR also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ananda Social and Educational Trust v. CIT(140 Taxmann.com 693) to submit that the term ‘activities’ would include proposed activities also. The Ld. CIT(E) is bound to consider whether the objects of the Trust were genuinely charitable in nature and whether the proposed activities were genuine in the sense that they were in line with the object of the Trust. The Ld. CIT-DR referred to the findings of Ld. CIT(E) in the impugned order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under.
Upon perusal of para-4 of impugned order rejecting registration u/s 12A, it could be ascertained that the application has been rejected primarily on the ground that the society did not commence any activity till the date of filing of the registration application. The assessee undertook only one activity of ‘donation given for bhandara’on 24.06.2025 which was not even reflected in its bank account. It was thus held by Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the claimed expenditure or its activity and therefore, the registration u/s 12A was denied. Consequently, the registration application u/s 80G was also rejected vide separate order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeals before us.
Before us, the assessee has furnished various documents viz. copy of bank statement from 01.04.2005 till date along with explanation of bank entries and pictures depicting charitable activities undertaken by the assessee. Upon perusal of all these documents, it wouldprima-facie appear that the assessee has certainly carried out various activities after the date of rejection of its registration applications. These documents would have material bearing on registration applications. Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter of impugned registrations back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for de novo consideration and adjudication. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case forthwith.
Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 2nd February, 2026.