SHRI SURTI MODH VANIK JAGRUTI MANDAL,MUMBAI vs CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHUADHARY , JM

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta CA

For Respondent: Shri DR Kishor Dhule CIT DR

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:

1) These two appeals filed by the assessee charitable trust for assessment year 2023 – 24 against the order passed by the

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) , Mumbai (the learned CIT – E) wherein per order dated 20/3/2024 the application of the assessee for registration under section 12 AB of the act in form number 10 AB filed on 31/3/2022 was rejected and consequently by another order of the same date the application for approval of registration under section 80 G was also cancelled for the reason that application for regularization of registration under section 12 A is already rejected. 2) Therefore, the assessee trust is aggrieved and has preferred the above two appeals, first against the rejection of regularization of registration and second against rejection of application for registration under section 80 G (5) of the act. 3) The fact shows that assessee trust originally applied for regularization of registration under section 12 AB of the income tax act by filing form number 10 AB on 31/3/2022 which was rejected by the learned CIT exemption by order dated 27/9/2022 stating that the trust deed contains a provision where the purposes of the trust are other than charitable. The assessee preferred an appeal before the coordinate bench wherein the order of the learned CIT exemption was set aside, and the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT – A as per order dated 27/7/2023. 4) The coordinate bench held that the assessee trust has been enjoying registration under section 12 A of the act in the year 2001 onwards. As the application of the assessee was rejected, the ITAT restored the application of the assessee for registration under section 12 AB as well as under section 80 G of the act back to the file of the learned CIT – A with direction to process the same in accordance with law after hearing the assessee. The assessee was also directed to file written submission relevant documents etc. to support its application and thereafter the CIT – exemptions was to pass orders after hearing the assessee.

5) Thus, the application of the assessee for registration as well as recognition under section 80 G of the act was restored to the file of the learned CIT – A. 6) The learned CIT E held that according to the provisions of section 12 A (1) (ac) (iii) the assessee trust should have applied for regularization of the registration prior to 6 months before the expiry of the provisional registration or within six months from the date of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. 7) In the present case the learned CIT – E found that assessee has been granted provisional registration under section 12 A inform number 10 AC on 4/4/2022. The assessee has filed an application in form number 10 AB on 31/3/2022. Thus, the assessee has filed an application for regularization of the registration before the issuance of the provisional registration. Therefore, if there is no provisional registration granted to the assessee, it could not have been regularized.As the assessee was not granted registration under section 12 AB, naturally 80 G registration/recognition could not have been granted. 8) Now we find that the central board of direct taxes has come with a circular as under :-

SHRI SURTI MODH VANIK JAGRUTI MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI