GREETING HANDS FOR ABANDONED RESCUES TRUST ,AJMER vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), AJMER

(i). Whether the registration under RPT Act, 1959 is must or not. (ii). Whether, what is the exact legal remedy available to the trust viz. re-apply or appeal. (iii). And many more other issues. to 828/JP/2024 Greeting Hands for Abandoned Rescues Trust vs. ITO 3. That more or less most of charitable trusts and consultants are not well-versed with the latest development of Income Tax Laws related to registration u/s. 12A & 80G of the Act. Therefore, the Parliament has amended many times in recent past to clarify the Law & CBDT has also issued around 4-5 circulars to extend the due dates & clarify the Law to remove the genuine hardship faced by the charitable trusts.

4. That in the circumstances as mentioned in above Para No. 2 and 3, the delay is due to delay in engage a counsel who is well-versed with the law related to charitable trust.

In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 9 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant.”

The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted due to frequent changes in the law it took time to file the appeal and therefore, he prayed to condone the delay of 9 days.

3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR fairly did not objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit in the interest of justice as delay is of nine days only.

“1. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur by rejecting application u/s 12AB(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.

2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 5.1 In the assessee has raised following grounds:

“1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional registration and nor issued Show Cause Notice for rejection of provisional registration u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.

3. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur by rejecting provisional registration u/s. 12Aof the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.

4. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.

the assessee has raised following grounds:

“1. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur by rejecting application u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the appellant. 2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 5.3 In the assessee has raised following grounds:

- “1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional approval and nor issued Show Cause Notice for rejection of provisional approval u/s. 80G of the I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.

2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional approval u/s. 80G without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular & notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.

4. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.

Since it was a limitation matter, therefore, the case was decided by ld. CIT(E) based on the material filed by the assessee along with its application in Form no. 10AB and the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected with following observations;

“3.5. In response, applicant has submitted the submission on 11.03.2024. On the basis of documents furnished by the applicant it is held that applicant's activities are non-genuine on the basis of following analysis.

• Applicant incurring expenditure on construction/renovation, while no land and building is owned thus expenditure in the object of trust or otherwise not proved.

• No details of ownership of land.

• Payment made to Shri Jatin Sharma trustee for reimbursement of expenses, however not submitted the relevant bills/voucher of the expenses and copy of bank account of Shri Jatin Sharma to prove

• Payment made to Pranjal Mishra, Singhal Sharad, Chen Singh, Bhishm enterprises but not submit for which charitable activity such payment was made.

• No bills vouchers, copies of ledger accounts furnished in respect of expenses shown in income and expenditure account,

• Not furnished bank transaction details above Rs. 20,000/-,

From the above discussion it is held that applicant's activities are non- genuine thus application for registration is liable to be rejected

4. In view of above discussion assessee's claim of registration section 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds: -

• Non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

• Non-Genuineness of Activities and non-compliance.

5. Further 12AB (1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfied has to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier registration. Thus, it is clarified that applicant's provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.12.2022 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also lapsed and cancelled.

While doing so ld. CIT(E) also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee with same order and that finding is taken up by the assessee in ITA No. 826/JP/2024. assesee’s claim of recognition u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:-

“In view of the above, the present application filed in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of sec. 80Gof the Act is liable to be rejected as non-maintainable.

4. In view of above discussion assessee's claim of approval u/s80G is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds: -

• Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB

• Commencement of activities.

On perusing the record we observe that the appellant has filed an 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act and provisional registration was granted on 13.12.2022. Subsequently, the assessee had filed online application in Form 10AB seeking permanent registration u/s 12AB of the Act on 30.09.2023 before ld. CIT(E), whereas the ld. CIT(E) has passed order in the absence of information and the same was not furnished completely for which ld. AR of the assessee prayed one more chance to submit all documents and explanations which are required for registration and recognition. Looking to the fact that the assessee was not given sufficient time and at the same time RPT registration yet to placed on record before ld. CIT(E) and other observation for which the assessee prayed one chance to submit the details of the merits of its case we considered the prayer of the assessee to set a side both the application to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for decision a fresh after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. Based on the arguments presented before us, we are of the considered view that the reasons advanced by ld. CIT(E) are curable in nature and if the assessee be given a chance can submit the details and therefore, considering the request of the ld.AR of the assessee and in the interest of justice we are restoring the matter to the file of the both the applications of the assessee. The Bench does not want to go into merit of the case but it is imperative that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E).

In this view of the matter, the Bench feels that the assessee should be given one more chance to contest the case before the ld. CIT(E) and the assessee is directed to produce all the relevant papers concerning both the applications so filed before the ld. CIT(E) to settle the dispute raised hereinabove.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/11/2024.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh½ ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judcial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member to 828/JP/2024 Greeting Hands for Abandoned Rescues Trust vs. ITO Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29/11/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Greeting Hands for Abandoned Rescues Trust, Ajmer 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 825 to 828/JP/2024) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत