M/S. PRANATHI GRAMINA ABHIVRUDHI SAMSTHE,BELLARY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the CIT's action unreasonable. It held that the CIT should have afforded sufficient opportunity to the assessee and directed the CIT to re-examine the applications, making necessary inquiries.
What were the facts?
The assessee applied for registration under Section 12AA and recognition under Section 80G. The CIT rejected the applications, stating that the genuineness of the trust and its activities could not be verified and that a designated officer was required to examine these aspects.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT properly afforded opportunity to the assessee for verification of genuineness of trust and its activities before rejecting the registration and recognition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders of CIT denying the registration recognition under section 12AA and 80G(5) of the IT Act.
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the order of the CIT passed under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) with the submission that CIT has not afforded sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee to furnish the details sought by him to prove the genuineness of the trust and its activities. He has invited our attention that CIT had fixed the hearing on 25.05.2016 at 11.45 AM. The assessee filed certain details. However, the amended copy of trust deed could not be produced and assessee sought time to produce the same. But the CIT instead of giving time, had rejected the application for registration and on account of rejection of registration under section 12A, the and 1366/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 3 recognition under section 80G filed by the assessee was also rejected, having observed that a designated officer is required to examine the cause with a view to obtain the satisfaction of the object of the trust. He further observed that it is not possible to verify the genuineness of the trust or its activities. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is required to file all the relevant evidences and prove the genuineness of the trust and its activities and it is for the CIT to examine himself or to call for report from his subordinates. But he cannot deny the registration merely on the ground that the designated officer is required to examine the genuineness of trust and its activities. Whenever the registration is required it is for the authorities concerned to examine the objects and the activities of the trust. Therefore, the CIT may be directed to grant registration.
The learned DR placed reliance upon the order of the CIT.
Having carefully examined the orders of the authorities below, we find that CIT has rejected the registration having observed that designated officer is required to examine the genuineness of trust and its activities. Since it is not possible to verify the genuineness of trust and its activities, he rejected the registration. The action of the CIT does not appear to us to be reasonable. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT in both the appeals and restore the matter to his file with a direction to re-examine the claim of registration of trust and recognition of trust under section 80G(5) also by making necessary enquiries either by himself or through his subordinates. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on 22nd December, 2017.
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026