Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the CIT(E) on the grounds of non-genuine activities. The assessee challenged this order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the reasons for rejection by the CIT(E) were curable in nature and that the assessee had provided additional evidence. The Tribunal deemed it fit to grant the assessee one more chance to contest the case before the CIT(E).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under section 12AB and cancelling its provisional registration due to allegations of non-genuine activities.
Sections Cited
12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Sambodhi Foundation cuke ITO, A-25/1, Triveni Awas, Bajrang Nagar, Vs. Ward-2(1), Kota. Kota. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAWTS0932P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby :Sh. C. P. Chawla, ITP jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 22/08/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Because the assessee was aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [ herein after referred as ld. “CIT(E)”] dated 30.03.2024, the present appeal is filed. The order under challenge is passed rejecting the application of the assessee in Form no. 10AD for registration as per provision of section 12AB of the Income Tax Act [ here in after referred to as “the Act”].
Sombodhi Foundation 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-(Exemption) Jaipur, is not justified in cancelling the application filed by the assessee trust seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The appellant craves the right to add, amend, alter and delete the ground of appeal before or at the date of hearing.”
The facts as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed online application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 13.09.2023. A letter/notice dated 04.12.2023 was issued at the e- mail/address provided in the application requiring the assessee to submit certain documents/explanations by 13.12.2023, in response assessee filed adjournment request on 13.12.2023, considering the same case was further fixed on 10.01.2024 vide letter dated 27.12.2023. In response, no reply filed by the assessee thereafter again a reminder was given on 30.01.2024 and case was fixed for 08.02.2024, in response trustee Sh. Aditya Pandey and ld. AR attended on 15.02.2024 and they asked to furnish reply on queries raised vide note sheet dated 15.02.2024 and next date was fixed for 23.02.2024. In response assessee filed part reply on 23.02.2024. Further a show cause letter given vide by ld. CIT(E) letter dated 05.03.2024 fixing the case on 12.03.2024, in response Sombodhi Foundation assessee filed reply on 12.03.2024. On examination of reply assessee not found eligible for registration u/s 12AB as noted by the ld. CIT(E). The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(E) is reproduced here in below :
“Applicant filed reply on 12.03.2024, but no statement is given on above queries, but only furnished the letter of Gram Panchayat Yallampet, with its translation. However it is only the content of such letter, with no signature and date. Thus, from such translation contention of assesse is not proved. From the above it is clear that bills furnished by applicant are not genuine, back dated, even otherwise addressed to Corteva and not assessee institution. Thus, the activities are non- genuine and application for registration is liable to be rejected. From the above discussion it is held that applicant's activities are non- genuine thus application for registration is liable to be rejected.
3. 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 Genuineness of Activities.
04. 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 08.10.2022 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.”
Feeling dissatisfied with the finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(E) the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds as stated here in above. In support of the grounds of appeal the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following written submission:-
Sombodhi Foundation “The only issue involved in this appeal is regarding denial of registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and cancelling the provisional registration already granted to the assessee trust under clause(vi) of clause (ac) of sub section (1) of section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08/10/2022, by the Id. CIT (Exemption) Jaipur. In this appeal, the assessee trust has raised following ground of appeal:-
1. As mentioned in Ground no.2 of appeal at serial no. 10 (Ten) of Form No.36- Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, -In the Income TAX Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur-the ground no.1 (one) of appeal is amended as under: - "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) is not justified in cancelling the application filed by the assessee trust seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act, and also in cancelling provisional registration already granted under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub section (1) of section 12A of the Act, dated 08/10/2022" Brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the assessee trust filed online application in Form No. 10AB, (Paper Book Page no.7-13) before the Id. CIT (Exemption) Jaipur, for seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act, on 13/09/2023. In turn, the Id. CIT (Exemption), issued first letter/Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2023-24/1058448484(1) on 04/12/2023, requiring the assessee to file certain documents/explanations by 13/12/2023. On this date, the assessee trust sought adjournment. Consequently, the case was fixed for 10/01/2024. Subsequently, the aforesaid application was fixed on 08/02/2024 and further fixed on 23/02/2024, 12/03/2024. In compliance, the trustee and the CA/AR of the asssessee attended on 15/02/2024 and they were asked to furnish reply on queries raised vide note sheet dated 15/02/2024 and next date was fixed for 23/02/2024. In response, the assessee filed written reply on the due date along with supporting documents. Further, in compliance of show cause letter dated 05/03/2024, the assessee furnished written submission along with supporting documents on the due date Le. 12/03/2024 (Paper Book- Page No.14-20). The assessee has shown various activities as its CSR Project like Com Mechanisation. Solar Light, RO Plant, School infrastructure development and garbage vehicle in the aforesaid written submission. The Id. CIT (Exemption) without giving any heed to the facts mentioned in the written submission and facts as put forth before him during the course of hearing on 15/02/2024, rejected the said application seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act, vide order dated 30/03/204, on the ground that the Corn Mechanisation activity carried out by the assessee trust, is non-genuine being money taken from farmers. Also, activities of Solar Lights, Water treatment plant (RO Plant) are non-genuine in view of some discrepancies in the purchase invoice of solar light and water treatment plant (Page no.5-Para (B) of the order of CIT (E), Also, the Id. CIT (Exemption) has cancelled the provisional registration on the plea Sombodhi Foundation that the assessee has failed to give proper justification for its regularization. 1) Corn Mechanisation Activity: The assessee trust has undertaken Corn Mechanisation activity in Uttar Pradesh regarding corns and its production under the CSR initiative of Mis Corteva Agriscience. Project Description-Com Mechanisation, is in the Paper Book (Page No. 21- 50). For corn mechanisation activity the assessee trust received funds from M/s Corteva Agriscience to provide financial assistance for corn farmers to cover the charges for pneumatic planter machine for sowing corn which was Rs750/- per acre. But, this pneumatic planter is not a self- propelled machine and it needs to be mounted on à 50HP plus tractor for operation. And the minimum rental charges for the tractor operation in the said geography was also estimated around Rs.750/- per acre (not covered under this project). Clubbing both the above mentioned components (Pneumatic Planter Rent and Tractor Operational Cost) together, the estimated total sowing rental cost sums to around Rs. 1500/- per acre. (excluding GST). These two components can be clarified in detail as below: - a)- Pneumatic Planter rental charges (ie. Rs.750 Per acre) This was covered under this CSR project and was given as financial subsidy for the farmers. This amount was paid to the Operators through National Agro (Technical Service Provider) for providing services to the farmers by pneumatic planter. Since it comes to around 50% of the total rental sowing cost (50% of Rs 1500/-) so it can also be considered as a 50% subsidy for farmers. Details of the bills and payment transfer receipts are in the paper book. b)- Tractor Operational Cost (i.e. Rs.750/- per acre) - It includes the cost of tractor rent, fuel charges etc. This was not covered under this CSR project. So, it was paid by the farmers directly to the operators who provided the sowing-services. Neither the assessee trust nor National Agro has intervened in this transaction. For farmers below one acre of land these charges were paid on pro rata basis the land filled. These facts were brought to the notice of the Id. CIT (Exemption) during the course of hearings of the registration proceeding of assesssee trust and also in the written submission filed before him on 12/03/2024. The ld. CIT (Exemption) vide Note sheet entry dated 15/02/2024, required following details relating to aforesaid project: | Page no. 3,4- Para No.(A) (i) of order of the CIT(E)] Details of all farmers, whose land is filled, in following format:- Name, Address, Mobile No. Aadhar No. Land Area (in Acre) In response, the assessee trust filed list of farmers along with other details. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT (Exemption) directed the inspector of his office to contact farmers on test check basis regarding, if any money taken from the farmers for such activity of the trust. Report of the inspector | Page no.4-para no. 1 of order of the CIT (E)), reads as under: - Sombodhi Foundation "I make call on test check basis to 12 persons out of them only 03 persons responded, details and report is as under: - i. Shri Sudhir Singh, Mob -7408855551, stated that he paid Rs.750/- per acre, but not remember the name of organisation. ii. Sh. Santosh Pal, Mob. 7317690703, stated that he paid Rs. 150/- per bigha. iii. Sh. Brajesh, Mob. 9935416634, also stated to pay Rs. 150/- per bigha" On the basis of above report of the Inspector, the Id. CIT(E) observed that "it is matter of fact that farmers are charged with amount of Rs 750/- per acre regarding activity of Corn Mechanisation". Hence, show cause letter dated 05/03/2024 issued, [Page no.4-para no. of 2 order of the CIT (E)], raising query, reads as under- "Regarding corn mechanisation, this office contacted farmers telephonically Sh. Sudhir Singh, Sh. Santosh Pal, Sh. Brajesh Kumar, they have stated they paid Rs. 150/- per Bigha (Le. Rs. 750/- per acre), however, you have claimed that no money is taken from farmer. Please explain that why it should not be considered misrepresentation of facts and siphoning off money which wax received from farmers as same has not been disclosed in the books of account." | Page no.4-para no.2 of order of the CIT (E)], In compliance, the assessee filed written submission on 12/03/2024, (Paper Book-page no17-20.) However, the Id. CIT (E) has not given any heed to the above facts and treated the Corn Mechanisation activity as non- genuine holding/observing as under: [Page no. 5-last para- of the order-CIT(E)] "Above reply examined and found that the applicant, now bringing new fact first time that farmers Cost approximately Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 1500/- per acre which includes operator, diesel, tractor etc. costs. Appellant was silent earlier that no money is taken from the farmers, but after revealing from telephonic enquiry, now appellant trying to justify its error/misrepresentation. It is thus clear that application taken money from the farmers and the same is not disclosed in its books of account. Thus this act shows the non-genuineness of activity so claimed by the assessee.” Submission Appellant: a) The Id. CIT (E) is not correct and justified in observing that the applicant brought new fact first time that the farmers cost approximately Rs.1000/-to Rs. 1100/-, In this regard, the written submission filed on 12/03/2024 to the Id. CIT(E). The applicant had explained the Pre and Post Scenario of this Com Mechanisation Project. On this the assessee explained that before the implementation of the project, in the Pre Mechanisation Scenario, it was observed that the farmers who were engaged in Corn Cultivation, were using two primary sowing methods either (i)-By Tractor mounted Seed Drill Machine which used to cost them around 1000-1100 INR per acre or (ii)- by manual sowing. So this figure as pointed out by the Id. CIT (E) in his order, is the rental cost of Sombodhi Foundation sowing services by tractor mounted regular seed drill, which is an outdated technology method. It was mentioned/cited just for a comparative reference. This can be understood through a comparative analysis of different sowing methods and their output as shown below- ----------- Further, in support of assessee's claim that tractor operator cost is Rs.750/- per acre. Likewise pneumatic Planter rental charges are also Rs.750/- per acre, letter dated 05/07/2024 issued by the Corteva Agriscience Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad (Telangana), (Paper Book Page No. 51) is enclosed as Additional evidence and for which separate application filed) Wherein it has been mentioned/certified as under: - "This is to certify that Corteva Agriscience PVT. Ltd. (CAIPL) had approved a project under its CSR project under initiative for the FY 2022-23, which was submitted by the Sambodhi Foundation on Corn Mechanisation for Western Utter Pradesh. The project implementation period was between 1" February to 31. March, 2023. This project promoted adoption of Pneumatic Planter in Spring Corn by providing subsidy on Planter rental. The normal rental cost of Planter (with tractor & Operator is assumed around Rs. 1,500- per acre. Under this project the beneficiary farmer paid only Rs. 750/-per acre to tractor operator towards operator's daily running cost (Fuel, Operator, Tractor wear & Tear). A subsidy of remaining Rs.750/- was given by CAIPL under this CSR project. This subsidy amount was paid to Tractor operator through implementation partner. All other fee and taxes are paid as per agreed & applicable rates. b) The applicant was not silent earlier being it was categorically stated before the Id. CIT(E) and in the written submission, that not a single penny was taken from the farmers. Also, the contents of report of the Inspector which is based on telephonic enquiry [order of the CIT(E) on page no. 4) made from three farmers does not indicate that they have paid any money to the assessee trust to support this, following facts are submitted: 1)Sudhir Singh clearly stated that he did not remember the name of organization to whom payment of Rs 750/- per acre was made. Thus, it is amply clear that when Sudhir Singh did not tell the name of organization to whom payment was made, then, how it can be concluded that the said payment was taken by the assessee trust from the farmer 2) Shri Santosh Pal stated that he paid Rs. 150/- per Bigha. But he has not stated that to whom payment was made by him. So, it cannot be concluded that payment of Rs. 150/- per bigha was made by him to the assessee trust. 3) Shri Brajesh has stated to pay Rs. 150/- Per Bigha. From this, it cannot be ascertained that to whom payment was made by him. 4) During the course of telephonic enquiry, the statements that were given by the farmers that they had paid Rs.150/-bigha or Rs. 750/- per acre for the sowing services was out of the farmer's contribution to Sombodhi Foundation cover the tractor operational charges for the sowing process on pro rata basis. And this amount was paid by the farmers to the Operators, not to the assessee trust. In support of this. Affidavits of above farmers on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- duly notarized by the Notary Public and their copy of Aadhar Card are enclosed as an Additional evidence paper book (Page no.52-57) for kind consideration. Farmers have also unanimously agreed that they have received the financial benefit of Rs.750/- per acre for the sowing rental cost through this project. 5) In view of facts mentioned above at Sr. no. 1), 2), 3), 4), it is evident that the assessee has not taken any money from the farmers. So, it is amply clear that the observation of the Id. CIT(E) is based on presumption/assumption. Accordingly, it is submitted that the CIT(E) has misunderstood and misinterpreted the facts relating to financial structure of Corn Mechanisation project. Telephonic enquiry of inspector is also not valid in the eye of law. In view of these facts, the observation of the Id. CIT(E) is not at all acceptable and deserves to be rejected. 2) Discrepancies pointed by Ld CIT(E) in Clause B Page no.6-Order- CIT(E)] 1st Observation of the Id. CIT(E) [Page no.6-Order-CIT(E)] -Invoice of solar purchase is dated 20.12.2022 and confirmation from gram Panchayat Yeelampet is 22.10.2022 as per discussion with you, thus how it is possible how confirmation is prior to purchase of goods. Furnish your explanation how confirmation is prior to purchase of such solar lights. Submission-Appellant Project Description-Installation of Solar Lights-placed in the Paper Book (Page no. 58-64) On the above issue, the assessee trust furnished its explanation vide written submission dated 12/03/2024- which is in the paper Book-page-17-20, wherein it was explained that the letter issued by the Gram panchayatYellampet, Mandal, Dist-Medchal- Malkajgiri (Telangana), dated 22/10/2022 in Telugu language was a request letter and not a confirmation letter. In support of this, following documents were submitted along with above written submission. I. The copy of said request letter dated 22/10/2022 in-Paper Book (Page no.65). Certified translation is also attached with it. (Page no-66) II. The copy of the Invoice dated 20/12/2022, paper book (Page no-67) III. The copy of confirmation letter dated 07/04/2023, -in the Paper Book (Page no.68) In view of above facts, it is evident that the Id. CIT (E) has wrongly treated the request letter dated 22/10/2022 as confirmation letter. Hence, the question of confirmation from Gram panchayat is prior to the date of purchase of solar lights does not arise. 2nd, Observation of the Id. CIT(E) (Page no.6-Order-CIT(E)) Invoice of water treatment plant is dated 27.03.2023 and confirmation from gram Panchayat Yeelampet is 10.02.2023 as per discussion with you.
Sombodhi Foundation Furnish your explanation how confirmation is prior to purchase of such solar lights Submission-Appellant On the above issue, the assessee trust furnished its explanation vide written submission dated 12/03/2024- which is in the paper Book (page no. 69-70) wherein it was explained that the letter issued by the gram panchayat Thimmareddipalle, Doulatabad Mandal, Dist-Vikarabad (Telangana), dated 10/02/2023-in Telegu language was a request letter and not a confirmation letter. In support of this following documents were submitted along with above written submission. I. The copy of said request letter dated 10/02/2023 in paper Book (Page no 71). Certified translation is also attached with it in paper Book (Page no 72) II. The copy of the Invoice dated 27/03/2023 paper book (Page no. 73-75) III. The copy of confirmation letter dated 11/03/2024, -in the Paper Book (Page no.76) In view of above facts, it is clearly evident that the Id. CIT (E) has wrongly treated the request letter dated 10/02/2023 issued by gram panchayat, as confirmation letter. Hence, the question of confirmation from gram panchayat is prior to the date of purchase of RO plant does not arise. 3rd Observation of the Id. CTT (E) [Page no.6-Order-CTT(E)] Gram Panchayat letter is addressed to Corteva and not sambodhi" Submission-Appellant: These projects were part of local area development projects in the vicinity of the Corteva Agriscience headquarters in Telangana. So as a standard procedure, the village panchayat had addressed the request letter to Corteva Agrisciences for these social projects. Corteva had assigned these projects to the assessee trust for successful implementation. 4th Observation of the Id. CIT (E) [Page no.6-Order-CIT(E))- "Photographs furnished also bearing name of Corteva Submission-Appellant: Most of the photos submitted displaying the names of the Sambodhi Foundation with Corteva Corteva funded these projects and the assessee trust implemented them. Photographs were taken just for the records of Corteva 5th Observation of the Id. CIT (E) [Page no.6-Order-CTT(E)]- “No e-mail trails between assessee and Corteva" Submission-Appellant Indeed, there are several email trails. But in this regard, it is also submitted that most of the conversation happened were on WhatsApp or on phone calls for ease of communication and quicker coordination. 6th Observation of the Id. CIT (E) [Page no.6-Order-CIT(E)]- "Appellant filed reply on 12/03/2024, but no statement is given on above queries, but only furnished the letter of Gram Panchayat Yallmpet, with Sombodhi Foundation its translation. However, it is only the content of such letter, with no signature and date Thus, such translation the contention of the assessee ix not proved From the above it is clear that bills are not genuine, back dared.” Submission Appellant: In compliance of show cause letter/notice dated 05/03/2024, the assessee trust had furnished its explanation on 12/03/2024 along with supporting documentary evidences as mentioned above. As regards, the observation of the Id. CIT(E) that there is no signature and date on translated letter" it is submitted that translated letter cannot be with signature. It is just a translation of the original letter which was in Telugu The copy of original letter (In telugu) was submitted which has the date, seal and signature for authentication in the paper book page no.65. So, it is submitted that the observation of the Id. CIT (E) is merely to point out discrepancy for treating activities of the assessee trust as non- genuine In view of above facts, it is amply clear that the id. CIT(E) was not justified in treating/observing that the activities of the assessee trust are not genuine. The assesse trust had implemented all these social activities with absolute genuineness and with the intention of social welfare at large. Apart from the above facts, it is submitted that the assesse trust was created on dated 08/06/2018. In support of this the trust deed copy is enclosed. Since then the trust was actively involved in the social- charitable activities. Its books of accounts are audited and the audit reports for the FY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21. 2021-22 are enclosed. The assesse has filed its first return of income for the AY 2023-24. In support of this copy of acknowledgement of return, computation of income and audit reports are placed in the Paper book page no136- 173. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above at length and the additional evidences filed before your honor which are vital and touch the root of the case (and for which separate application filed as per the provisions of Rule 29 of Income Tax Rules, 1963), it is humbly requested that the matter of the assessee trust may not kindly be restored back to the file of the Id. CIT (E) to be decided afresh. Accordingly, it is humbly prayed that the impugned order dated 30/03/2024 passed by the Id. CIT (Exemption) may kindly be set aside and also kindly be directed to grant registration to the assessee u/s 12AB (1) (ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
The ld. AR of the assessee also filed an application for entertaining additional evidences under Rule 29 of Income Tax “In accordance with the provisions of Rule 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 following documents are submitted for kind consideration: - 1) Affidavit in original-of Shri Sudheer Singh S/O Shri Anurudh Singh (along with copy of Aadhar card) (-Annexure-1) 2) Affidavit in original of Shri Santosh Kumar Pal S/o Shri Rajaram (along with copy of Aadhar card) (Annexure-2) 3) Affidavit in original of Shri Sanjesh Kumar (Alias-Brajesh) S/o Shri Chhote Lal (along with copy of Aadhar card) (Annexure-3) 4) Letter issued by Corteva Agriscience India Pvt. Ltd.-dated- 05/07/2024. (Annexure-4-) The above documents could not be filed before the id. CIT (E), as no sufficient time was allowed by him [the Ld. CIT (E)]. To support this, following facts are submitted before your honour for kind consideration. For the very first time, the Id. CIT (E) vide letter dated 05/03/2024(Copy Enclosed-Annexure-5) has pointed out the discrepancies related to the Corn Mechanisation activity as under: - "Regarding corn mechanization, this office contacted farmers telephonically Sh. Sudhir Singh, Sh. Santosh Pal, Sh. Brajesh Kumar, they have stated they paid Rs. 150/- Bigha (Le Rs.750/- per acre), however you have claimed that no money is received from farmer. Please explain that why it should not be considered misrepresentation of facts and siphoning off money which was received from farmers as same has not been disclosed in books of account. The assessee was required to furnish the documents/details related to the above query on orbefore 12/03/2024. Thus, it is evident that only 6 (Six) days' time was practically allowed and that was insufficient, in view of the fact that the above 3(three) farmers are residents of different remote Villages of U.P. and procuring said documents to refute the objections raised by the Ld. CIT (E) was very difficult in a short period of six days. In view of these facts, the above mentioned documents at serial no.1-4 could not be filed before the Id. CIT (E). Accordingly, it is humbly prayed that the above additional evidences which are vital and
The ld. AR of the assessee in support of the written submission and petition for additional evidence has supplied the following evidence:-
S. No. Particulars Pg. No.
Written submission 1-6 2. Form 10AB-application-registration 7-13 3. Written submission filed CIT(E) 14-20 4. Corn Mechanisation –activity-description 21-50 5. Letter Corteva Agriscience 51 6. Three affidavits farmers 52-57 7. Solar Light project 58-64 8. Request letter solar lights 65-66 9. Invoice solar lights 67 10. Confirmation letter solar lights 68 11. Ro-water plant-project 69-70 12. Request letter RO water plant 71-72 13 Invoice ROwater plant 73-75 14. Confirmation letter-RO water plant 76 15. Trust dee 77-135 16. Audit reports copy of ack. Of return etc. 136-173
During the course hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the reasons advanced for rejection are curable and the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard before the ld. CIT(E) as stated in the written submission filed. He further submitted that if given an opportunity based on the Sombodhi Foundation additional evidence so submitted the assessee has very good chance of getting the registration based on the merits of the case. Based on these arguments the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to admit these additional in the interest of justice and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to be decided a fresh based on the additional evidence placed on record.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E) but at the same time did not object to the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. The bench noted that in this case the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee on the reason that the applicant trust activities are non-genuine and thereby the same was rejected.
Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(E) given the show cause notice to the assessee on 05.03.2024 and the reply was filed on 12.03.2024.
Considering the reply of the assessee there were certain observations of the ld. CIT(E) which are curable in nature. He also supported this contention stating that he has filed certain Sombodhi Foundation additional evidence under rule 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules to support the submission made by the assessee on 12.03.2024. The bench noted from the application so filed that assessee filed the affidavit of Shri Sudheer Singh, Shri Santosh Kumar and Shri Sanjesh Kumar (Alias Brajesh) so as to support the payment of charitable activities incurred by the assessee trust. Whereas ld. CIT(E) relied upon the report of the inspector only and in support these three affidavits need to be considered to clarify the issue raised by the ld. CIT(E).
In the light of these facts, we note that the decision of the ld. CIT(E) is based on the inquiry of three persons only. Even on those observations the assessee placed reliance on the affidavit so filed to clarify the doubts raised by the ld. CIT(E). The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper book in support to support the genuineness of the activities of the trust.
In consideration of the overall facets of the matter the bench noted that the reasons advanced by the ld. CIT(E) while rejecting the application of the assessee are curable in nature and considering the peculiar facts of the case that the assessee has supported the same with the additional Sombodhi Foundation evidence so filed, we deem it fit to grant one more chance to the assessee so as to deal with their facts in the interest of justice. Thus, considering the interest of justice, this additional evidence filed by the assessee is admitted.
Based on these observations we are of the considered view that the assessee should be given one more chance to contest the case before the ld. CIT(E), at the same time the assessee is directed to produce all the relevant papers concerning registration application so filed before the ld. CIT(E) to settle the dispute raised hereinabove.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/08/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22/08/2024 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Sambodhi Foundation, Kota. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत