DHRITI FOUNDATION TRUST,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD, 1(3)(1), MATHURA, MATHURA

Perused the records and heard learned representative for the assessee and learned departmental representative.

During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the Learned Authorised Representative contended that the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G without appreciating the submissions and the material placed on record in the correct perspective. It was submitted that the assessee trust is engaged in providing free education to students from economically weaker sections and is operating from a leased premises as a charitable trustee branch of Brij Dham Vidya Mandir, Mathura who is affiliated to CBSE. The aims and objects of the trust are stated to be charitable in nature within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. In support of the charitable nature of its activities, the appellant trust has placed before us voluminous documentary evidence, including -

It is further submitted that the assessee-trust is being managed by a lady trustee and operates from leased premises. The trust has submitted all relevant documentary evidence, substantiating the charitable nature of its activities before the Tribunal, which may be duly verified at the appropriate stage of proceedings. The assessee-trust is engaged in a very noble cause, providing free education to students belonging to economically weaker sections of society. These charitable activities are entirely funded through voluntary donations. Therefore, in the absence of timely grant of registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, the trust’s ability to raise necessary funds would be severely impaired, thereby adversely affecting the education and future of underprivileged students who are the direct beneficiaries of its efforts. The ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the learned CIT (Exemptions) for verification of the documentary evidences and for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law at the earliest after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) relied on the impugned orders and supported the findings of the Ld. CIT(E).

A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the assessee had duly responded to notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) through replies dated 22.10.2024 and 18.12.2024. However, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) merely state that the assessee was found ineligible for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Act, without assigning any cogent reasons or addressing the submissions and the material filed by the assessee. We find that the Ld. CIT(E) has not provided any reasoning to substantiate the alleged ineligibility of the assessee trust, nor has there been any discussion or analysis of the materials, which led the ld. CIT(E) to arrive at such a conclusion. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be said to be speaking orders. Considering the nature and extent of documentary evidences now produced before us, and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter requires a fresh examination and the evidences submitted by the assessee, demonstrating the charitable nature of its activities, are required to be verified and considered at the level of the Ld. CIT(E).

In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned orders both dated 31.12.2024 and restore the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to re-examine 4 | P a g e the applications filed by the appellant trust in light of the evidences including bills/vouchers furnished and in accordance with law after due verification. In view of the request made by ld. AR for expeditious disposal, learned CIT(E) is requested to expeditiously dispose of the matter preferably within three months from the date of uploading this order on ITAT website. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(E) shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

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