SANKALP WELFARE SOCIETY,SCO vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH
Facts
The assessee, Sankalp Welfare Society, applied for final registration under section 12A(i)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected these applications, citing a lack of documentary evidence for charitable activities and suspicion that funds were used to promote the business of the society's president, who owned 'Medica Enterprises' to whom substantial payments were made. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity of hearing before the applications were rejected.
Held
The Tribunal observed that a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted by the CIT(E) before rejecting the applications. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand both applications (for registration u/s 12A/12AB and approval u/s 80G) back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain their charitable work and submit necessary supporting documentary evidences.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 12A(i)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and without fully considering the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee.
Sections Cited
12A(i)(ac)(iii), 80G, 12A, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
Both the appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh dated 20.03.2024 and 22.03.2024 rejecting the application
seeking registration u/s 12A(i)(ac) sub-clause (iii) and the corresponding application for approval u/s 80G of the Act, 1961 respectively.
2 I.T.A. Nos. 617 & 618/Chd/2024 Assessment Year: NA
ITA No. 617/Chd/2024:
The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows:
“1. The Learned CIT (E) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by rejecting application for registration under sections 12A(1)(ac)(iii) citing deficiency in factual evidences.
The Learned CIT (E) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by not following the various judicial pronouncements on this issue.
The Learned CIT (E) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice.
The Learned CIT (E) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by rejecting the application of Registration on the ground that the substantial activities carried out by the applicant could not corroborate to its objects as per MOA.
The Learned CIT (E) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by taking the presumption that the society is using the funds to promote the business of president of the society without going into the actual facts and figures.
The Learned CIT (E) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by rejecting registration on ground of payment to Medica Enterprises without proving that payment has been made above market value.
The Learned CIT (E) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by rejecting registration application inspite providing proof of education expenses of poor children.
That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary the grounds of appeal here in above at or before hearing of appeal.”
3 I.T.A. Nos. 617 & 618/Chd/2024 Assessment Year: NA 3. The brief facts emerging from the record are that the assessee society is
registered under the ‘Societies Registration Act’, 1860 and engaged in charitable
activities and has applied for provisional registration on 02.11.2022 which was
granted and valid up till assessment year 2025-26. Application for final registration
u/s 12A(i)(ac)(iii) was filed on 21.09.2023, and in course of registration proceedings,
letters were issued by the ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh calling for documentary evidences
to examine the objects and the activities of the society, in response to which the
submissions were filed by the assessee.
On the basis of the submission filed, it was observed by the ld. CIT(E) that the
necessary documentary evidences relating to prove the charitable activities has not
been filed by the assessee. It was further observed that payments were made to one
Medica Enterprises relating to purchase of some medical equipments which were
supposed to have been donated to the poor but there was no documentary evidences
of such donations and it was seen that the president of the society (Sh. Sunil Sharma)
happens to be the proprietor of this Medica Enterprises to whom substantial
payments has been made.
On the basis of this factual aspect, the ld. CIT(E) arrived at a conclusion that
the activities of the society is not genuine and as such the application for registration
has been dismissed.
4 I.T.A. Nos. 617 & 618/Chd/2024 Assessment Year: NA 6. Before this Tribunal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee even though an
application for adjournment has been filed by the ld. counsel being busy with bank
audits.
We find from the grounds of appeal and statement of facts that the assessee has
objected to the fact that before rejection of the application for registration, the ld.
CIT(E) has not allowed a proper opportunity of hearing. In response to the notice
issued by the ld. CIT(E), documentary evidences has been filed and after considering
the documentary evidences, the application for registration has been rejected without
any further opportunity or without any issue of show cause notice. As such, the
contention of the assessee is that no proper opportunity has been granted and even
though substantial charitable activities has been carried out by the assessee regarding
expenses incurred for educational purposes of poor children and other allied
charitable activities, cognizance has not been given to the same.
In other words, the contention of the assessee as appearing from the statement
of facts and grounds of appeal are that the proper opportunity of hearing has not been
allowed by the ld. CIT(E) before rejecting the application for registration, without
any proper show cause.
5 I.T.A. Nos. 617 & 618/Chd/2024 Assessment Year: NA 9. As such, we are of the opinion that it will not serve any purposes if we adjourn
the hearing and as such we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter
should be remanded back to the ld. CIT(E) for considering all the documentary
evidences on record and to consider the application for registration afresh after
allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the charitable
work and activities that is carried out and to file all necessary supporting
documentary evidences for satisfaction of the ld. CIT(E). The assessee is also
directed to fully cooperate in fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(E) for proper
disposal of this application for registration.
As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
I.T.A. No. 618/Chd/2024:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the rejection of application for
approval u/s 80G of the Act.
Since, we have already remanded the application u/s 12A/12AB for the
purpose of fresh consideration before the ld. CIT(E), this application for approval u/s
6 I.T.A. Nos. 617 & 618/Chd/2024 Assessment Year: NA 80G is also remanded back to be decided afresh as per outcome of the application for
registration u/s 12A(i)(ac)(iii) of the Act, 1961.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 29.05.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order
