GARDEX HUMAN FOUNDATION ,KARTAR PUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In course of hearing before the tribunal the ld. AR of the assessee trust submitted that the trust is very much engaged in various charitable activities as per its objects contained in the trust deed and he further referred to (page no. 29) of the paper book where the acknowledgment of response as called for by the ld. CIT(E) has been uploaded in the online portal. 3.1 He further submitted that the trust has been granted provisional registration on 28.02.2023 u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) assessment year 2023-24 to 2025-26 and also has been granted registration u/s 80G (5) clause (iv) of the Act vide order dated 28.02.2023. One of the activities carried out by the trust was tree plantation for preservation of nature, and the said activities was carried out at village Bishrampur Kartarpur, support of which documentary evidences of bills and bank statements has been furnished. Thereafter, he submitted that after perusal of all financial documents and audit report filed, the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for registration without looking into the evidences of various charitable activities supported by & 184/Asr/2025 4 Assessment Year: 2024-25 photographs and before rejection of the same no SCN (show cause notice) has been issued and the assessee was never allowed an opportunity to explain the activities with documentary evidences to her satisfaction in absence of any opportunity being provided before rejecting the application. 3.2 He further submitted that when the objects of the trust is charitable in nature and it falls under the general public utility, the registration to the institution cannot be denied. In support of his contention he relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Water & Land Management Training a Research Institute reported in 461 ITR 1 (SC). As such, he prayed for an opportunity to present himself before the ld. CIT(E) and to explain his case to her satisfaction.

The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(E), but has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that before rejecting the application for registration, the ld. CIT(E) has not allowed any opportunity to explain the case and the ld. CIT(E) has also not pointed out any specific deficiency in the objects of the trust or any violation to the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and no such defects has also been pointed out in the objects of the trust deed which are supported by audited accounts. We also find that activity carried out by the assessee relating to plantation of saplings, is & 184/Asr/2025 5 Assessment Year: 2024-25 directly connected with the preservation of nature and the surrounding environment, and the assessee case is covered by its objects. We are also of the opinion, that before rejection of the application, the assessee should have been allowed an opportunity to explain his case which has not been done. 5.1 As such, in the interest of justice, we set aside the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to consider the application for registration afresh after allowing one more opportunity to the assessee to produce all necessary documentary evidences in support of his contention, and the assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in fresh proceedings.

As such, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Our observation in applies mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Since we have remanded the appeal in respect of application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) back to the ld. CIT(E), this appeal in respect of approval u/s 80G(5) is also remanded back to the ld. CIT(E) to be decided in tandem with the application for registration.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.