SRI RADHA GOVIND BHAJAN KUTIR SEVA TRUST,MATHURA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the trust was already registered under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) after verification of its activities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to submit the missing documentary evidence to the CIT(E) for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trust, applied for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application, stating that the assessee did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to verify the genuineness of its charitable activities.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the 80G(5) application without considering the prior 12A registration and if the assessee was given adequate opportunity to furnish evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been directed against the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Lucknow (hereinafter referred as “CIT(E), whereby he has rejected assessee’s application moved u/s. 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act”).
Assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that learned CIT(E) has erred in rejecting assessee’s application for approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Act, ignoring the fact that all requisite details were furnished by the appellant/assessee before learned CIT(E).
Perused the records and heard learned representative for assessee and ld. Departmental representative for Revenue.
Learned representative for assessee has submitted that assessee submitted all the documentary evidences with respect to various activities related to the objects of the assessee trust. However, ld. CIT(E) wrongly remarked that only part reply/documents were submitted by assessee before him and hence, he could not verify the genuineness of the trust in consonance with the objects of the trust. Ld. AR has drawn attention of this Tribunal towards order dated 24.09.2021 wherein the assessee trust was registered u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(i) for A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27 after verifying genuineness of all the activities related to the main objects of the trust.
Learned AR submitted to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
Learned DR has submitted that the assessee did not file supporting documents before ld. CIT(E) who could not satisfy himself in respect of genuineness of activities and supported the impugned order.
It is noticed that the assessee trust was registered on 24.09.2021 u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act vide copy of order for registration at page 25 of assessee’s paper book. It also appears that assessee filed reply dated 04.11.2024 in response to the notice dated 11.10.2024 issued by ld. CIT(E) submitting required details asked for. We notice that the impugned order reiterates at para-4 the objects of the trust.
It appears from the impugned order that ld. CIT(E) has mainly mentioned that he is unable to arrive at the satisfaction about charitable nature of the activities for want of bills, vouchers, photos, affiliation license, fire NOC and news coverage by media etc. so as to substantiate charitable activities claimed to have carried out by assessee trust for the recent past/last three years, for which expenditure has been booked in the income and expenditure account of the relevant years. It appears that the trust was registered u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act on 24.09.2021 after the satisfaction that said charitable activities were being carried out at that time. Hence, in such circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to afford appellant/assessee an opportunity to file the aforesaid pointed documentary evidences before ld. CIT(E) and make submissions afresh in respect of the activities of the trust with reference to the objects of the trust.
Learned CIT(E) is directed to pass order afresh on merits after considering
3 | P a g e the additional documentary evidences and the submissions, if made by the assessee. Needless to say that the principles of natural justice shall be substantially complied with by ld. CIT(E). Appeal is accordingly allowed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. We restore the matter to ld. CIT(E) for passing the order afresh in the light of above observations.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2025.
More judgments on Section 80G(5)
- Nikunj Mahendrabhai Adani, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2026/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1491/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1484/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026