AMRITAM PRASADAM FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT (E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Discussion (Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959) Admittedly, during pendency of the application seeking registration under section 12 AB of the Act, the applicant had not been yet been registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. In the course of arguments, learned AR for the appellant has submitted that the appellant Trust has been registered under the said Act, 1959. It needs to be highlighted that in the undated written submissions (depicting next date of hearing as 9.7.2024), CA for the appellant specifically mentioned that registration of the applicant Trust under the Act of 1959 has been received. Within brackets, it was mentioned that copy was being submitted therewith. But, what has actually been submitted with the written submissions is only a photostat copy of the Vidhan/deed of the applicant trust, purported to have been got attested from Notary Public on 28.10.2023. Prefixed to it, is copy of paper bearing particulars regarding submission of application on 29.4.2024 to obtain certified copy from the office of Assistant Commissioner (First), Devsthan Department, Jaipur. In other words, no copy of certificate of registration of the applicant trust under the Act of 1959 has been submitted. However Learned CA for the appellant pleads inadvertance in this regard, but, reiterates at Bar that the applicant trust has been registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. In this regard, suffice it to say, that factum of registration of the applicant Trust is to be considered by CIT(E). (Non genuineness of activities of the applicant & Application of income beyond the objects of the trust)

Coming to the second and third grounds for rejection of the application, Learned CIT(E) recorded at page 11 to 14 of the impugned order the reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the activities of the applicant were found to be non-genuine and that income was found to have been applied beyond the objects of the trust. In the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) has observed that in reply to the letter dt. 7.12.2023 issued by his office, the applicant submitted only copy of income and expenditure accounts, and as such, show cause notice dated 5.12.2023 was issued, but, the applicant did not furnish any reply thereto. Furthermore, in para 4.5 of the impugned order, learned CIT(E) bulleted the points which led him to hold that the activities of the applicant trust were non-genuine calling for rejection of the application for registration. Learned CIT(E) also specified at page 13 of the impugned order the details which the applicant trust did not furnish, but which were otherwise necessary for being examined on the point of registration under section 12 A. We have drawn attention of learned AR for the appellant to the above observations at page 13 and 14 of the impugned order, and enquired as to why all these details were not submitted to CIT(E) despite service of notices. Thereupon, Learned AR has stated at Bar that books of accounts and vouchers could not be produced before Ld. CIT(E) as Shri Mahesh Kumar, Accountant of the applicant Trust was out of city, and that this is a case where sufficient opportunity was not afforded by CIT(E) to the applicant of being heard. In support of this submission, learned AR has referred to affidavit dated 8.7.2024 of Shri Ravindra Khandelwal, Treasurer of the applicant trust. On going through the grounds of appeal, as available in Form No.36, We find that there is no such averment that books of accounts and vouchers could not be produced before Ld. CIT(E) as Shri Mahesh Kumar, Accountant of the applicant Trust was out of city. No such plea appears to have been put forth even before CIT(E) to seek adjournment for production of record or details. Secondly, no affidavit of Shri Mahesh Kumar, the concerned Accountant has been furnished. The deposition of Shri Ravindra Khandelwal, Treasurer, is not the best evidence about the fact required to be testified by the former.. Thirdly, in the abovesaid affidavit, nowhere it has been specified as to for how long Shri Mahesh Kumar was out of Jaipur. Even the period during which Shri Mahesh Kumar is alleged to be out of station, has not been specified in the affidavit, for the reasons best known to the deponent. Fourthly, learned CIT(A) has emphazied in the impugned order that earlier application presented by the applicant trust seeking registration was rejected vide order dated 20.9.2022 due to the reason that it could not prove genuineness of its activities. In other words, as observed by learned CIT(A), the applicant trust once again failed to establish this fact. We have drawn attention of learned AR of the appellant to said observations in the impugned order and asked him to address on this point, but learned AR has not furnished any satisfactory explanation in this regard. The previous application was admittedly rejected on 20.9.2022 and fresh application seeking registration was presented on 22.9.2023. It remains unexplained as to whether the applicant trust accepted the previous order dated 20.9.2022 or challenged the same before the Appellate Tribunal or by way of any other remedy. Para 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of the impugned order reveal the information called for by CIT(E) and also highlights the aspects on which the applicant trust could not satisfy as regards genuineness of its activities. Learned CIT(E) has specified in para 4.5 the documents, not produced by the applicant trust.

In view of the above discussion, it can safely be said that the applicant trust has been very casual in pursuing the application.

As regards application of the income, Ld. CIT(E) observed in the impugned order that the applicant failed to furnish any reply to the show cause notice dated 5.12.2023. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that the applicant-appellant has requested for only one opportunity to comply with the directions issued by CIT(E) as the points/issues discussed under ground No.2 and 3 rejected vide impugned order. From the written submissions, we find that already application under section 80G(5) of the Act earlier rejected by CIT(E) is stated to have been restored by this Appellate Tribunal on 20.12.2023. This submission has not been disputed on behalf of the Revenue.

Conclusion In the given situation, we find that this is a fit case where the matter deserves to be remanded to learned CIT(E) for decision on the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the applicant-appellant to comply with its directions, in accordance with law, but subject to costs for the casual approach adopted by it in the proceedings before CIT(E).

Result As a result of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and the matter is remitted to the Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the applicant- appellant of being heard and to comply with all his directions, in accordance with law. The applicant-appellant trust is burdened with costs of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) to be deposited in Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. Receipt in proof of deposit of costs to be produced before Learned CIT(E), before commencement of the proceedings there. Appellant-applicant to appear before Learned CIT(E). File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/11/2024. - (राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई ) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) लेखा सदस्य / Accountant Member जयपुर/Jaipur दिनांक/ Dated:- 14/11/2024 (नरेन्द्रकुमार) (NARINDER KUMAR) न्यायिक सदस्य / Judicial Member आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेशित / Copy of the order forwarded to: