RAJ RISHI BHARTRIHARI MATSYA UNIVERSITY ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALWAR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 568/JP/2023 cuke Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya ITO, Vs. University, Alwar Ward 1(1), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAJR 1283 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Poonia jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 06/03/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 01/05/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur dated 28/06/2023 [here

in after ld. CIT(E) ].

2 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”

assessee filed application on 31.12.2022 in Form No. 10AB for seeking

approval u/s 80G (5) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee was

issued a letter/notice dated 02.02.2023 requesting it to furnish certain

documents / explanations by 17.02.2023, but no compliance was made by

the applicant. Further, a reminder letter was issued vide this office DIN &

Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2023-24/1052812052(1) dated 13.05.2023

wherein date of hearing was fixed as 22.05.2023. In response to the above

the AR of the assessee has submitted its reply which is not found tenable.

Therefore, a show cause letter vide DIN No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2023-

24/1053620947(1) dated 08.06.2023 as final opportunity through which

date of hearing was fixed as 12.06.2023, but this time also on given date

no reply was filed by the applicant. Since it is a limitation matter, the case is

decided on the basis of material placed on record and application of the

applicant in Form 10AB for approval u/s 80G is liable to be rejected on the

ground that the applicant has begun its activities in FY 2019-20 itself and

the present application filed in the Form no. 10AB clause (iii) of the first

proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act has not been filed

within the time limit prescribed therein and therefore, the same is liable to

3 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO be rejected as such non maintainable. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(E)

is reiterated here in below:

“2.4 The submission of A/r of the applicant is perused and not found tenable. Therefore, as discussed in length above, it is concluded that the applicant has begun its activities in FY 2019-20 itself and the present application filed in Form No.10AB clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of sec. 80G of the Act has not been filed within the time limit prescribed therein and therefore the same is liable to be rejected as such as non-maintainable. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Bishnupur Public Education Institute, reported in 139 taxmann.com 121, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal while adjudicating the issue of similar provisions of due date u/s 10(23C) of the Act, after placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of Hon'ble High Court has held as under.

"5. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of All Angels Educational Society (supra) while considering the issue whether the Id. CIT (Exemption) has power to condone the delay in filing application for grant of approval under section 10(23C) or not, has considered the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P v. Harish Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173 as well as Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. 1996 taxmann.com 575 (SC) and held that where there is no provision to empower the statutory authority to condone the delay, than the authority cannot condoned. The finding of the Hon'ble Court in Paragraphs no. 15 & 16 worth to note, which read as under "15. However, considering the legal position that there is no power to condone the delay in filing an application under section 10(23C) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the delay. However, this Court is inclined to give appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application as an application for the subsequent assessment year, namely, 2013-2014 in accordance with law. Such direction is issued considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner could not have made an application for the subsequent assessment year 2013-2014, since their application for assessment year 2012-2013 was still pending consideration and the impugned order came to be passed only on 13- 11-2013. The respondent is at liberty to consider the amended objectives of the petitioner Trust.

4 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO be considered for the assessment year 2013-2014 in accordance with law and while doing so, may consider the amendments made to the objectives of the petitioner Trust. No Costs. M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is closed". 6. Similar is the view of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court propounded in Aurora Educational Society case (supra). The Hon'ble Orissa High Court has also considered this aspect in the case of Roland Educational & Charitable Trust (supra). The concluding paragraph of the judgment is worth to note in this aspect, which read as under :- "Be that as it may, we are here concerned whether in the absence of any statutory provision to condone the delay in presenting the application under section 10(23C)(vi) the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax can exercise any such power". 7. The adjudicating authorities under the Income-tax Act are quasi judicial authorities. They can grant approval with retrospective effect if such mechanism is provided in the Act. There is no such provision nor there is any power to condone the delay after considering the reasonable reasons. A reasonable cause can be taken into cognizance for condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C) (vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected. 8. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed." 2.5 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. 80G of the Act is liable to be rejected as non maintainable. 03. In view of above discussion assessee's claim of exemption u/s 80G is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds: - . Commencement of activities"

ground that the assessee has not applied for recognition within the time

permitted under the Act, i.e. within six months from the commencement of

the Activities of the trust, the assessee in appeal before this tribunal. To

5 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO support the grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee, he has filed

the written submissions and the same is reproduced herein below.

With reference to the captioned matter, we submit as under: “1. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar ("Matsya University or University or Assessee") is established by the Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar Act, 2012 ("University Act") which received the assent of the Governor of Rajasthan on 14.10.2012. The said University was established under Notification of Rajasthan Government vide official gazette notification no. 2(14) Vidhi/2/2012 on 23.08.2012. 2. Government of Rajasthan has formed 15 state universities across the state and defined their jurisdiction within which they can operate, affiliate and recognize colleges. The university is the only government university in Alwar conferring degrees prescribed by law. The jurisdiction of the university covers entire Alwar district. 3. Assessee-institution granted provisional registration on 21.09.2022 and further, applied for registration on 27.11.2022 & got registered u/s. 12AB, dated 30.05.2023. 4. Assessee-institution has applied for provisional approval on 27.11.2022 & granted provisional approval on 04.12.2022. Further, he applied for approval on 31.2.2022. 5. Now assessee received a notice for proceeding u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 dated 08.06.2023 and the query made by your good self are as follows:- "You have obtained provisional registration on 04.12.2022 and application in form 10AB has been filed on 31.12.2022. It is clear from the records available with this office such as Income & Expenditure accounts, bank account statements etc that you have well commenced your activities from the FY 2019- 20 itself. Therefore, there is a delay of more than six months in filing of Form 10AB. CBDT has issued a circular in F. No. 370133/06/2023-TPL dated 24.05.2023 through which date of application in Form 10AB has been extended only in case of application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (230) of section10 or under sub-clause (iii) of clause(ac) of subsection (1) of section 12A of the Act, till 30.09.2023 where the due date for making such application hax expired prior to such date. However, the extension of due date in filing form 10AB for application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G of the Act has not been extended. In view of the above, furnish an explanation as to why this delay of more than six months in filing of application in Form 10AB should not be considered as violation of section 80G according to which application under section 80G(iii) [Form 10AB] is to be

6 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO filed within six months of commencement of activities or six months before expiry of the provisional approval, whichever is earlier" We are inviting your attention to the relevant Law related to approval of institution:- "Proviso (iii) of sub-clause (vi) of clause 5 of Section 80G of the IT Act, 1961 (iii) where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier;" Finance Act, 2023 Sub clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso to Sub-section (5) of section 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 (iv) in any other case, where activities of the institution or fund have- (A) not commenced, at least one month prior to the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year from which the said approval is sought; (B) commenced and where no income or part thereof of the said institution or fraud has been excluded from the total income on account of applicability of sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 or section 11 or section 12 for any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any time after the commencement of such activities:/" 1. As per the New Scheme of approval u/s. 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 any institution have to got approval in 2 steps, which are as follows:- (i). Provisional approval by filing Form No. 10A. (ii). Approval by filing Form No. 10AB. 2. On analysis of this proviso (iii), the time limit for filing of Form No. 10AB of the Act, is as follows:- A. 6 Months prior to the expiry of the period of provisional approval. B. Within 6 months from the commencement of its activities. 3. Further, it is submitted that there is 2 types of institutions which are eligible for approval u / s 80G(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which are as follows:- (i). Newly established institution. (ii). Old Institutions.

7 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO 4. Hence, the correct interpretation of the said clause is:- (i). Any institution does not commencement of its activity then the first time limit will apply (i.e. at least 6 months prior to the expiry of the period of the provisional approval). (ii). If any institution has commenced its activity after the provisional approval then, the time limit for filing for approval in Form No. 10AB is within 6 months from the commencement of its activities. (iii). 3rd type of case, where activity has already commenced before the provisional approval. Then the time limit of 6 months starts from the date of commencement of its activities. Our case is of 3rd type of category of above mentioned:- The arguments & logics in support of limitation start within 6 months from the date of commencement of activities in case of 3rd category as mentioned above where activities already started before provisional approval are as follows:- 1. By the Finance Act 2023 the legislature amend the clause (iv) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act in 2 categories and new category will emerge w.e.f. 01.10.2023, if any institution had already commenced its activities, then the approval can be granted directly without going through the process of provisional approval. 2. If we go with your good self interpretation, if the institution has started its activity before provisional approval, then the said institution is not entitled for approval u / s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the same cannot be take benefit. So, it is neither correct interpretation nor intension of legislature. 3. Impossible condition cannot be imposed. 4. Nowadays many trust are running on self sustainability mode or we can say the trust are being charged to beneficiaries. But many charitable activities cannot be performed without the contribution of public. The purpose of introduction of approval u/s. 800(5) of the Act, is to give tax benefits to the donors. If any trust apply for approval u / s 80G(5) of the Act, after 6 months of commencement of activities, then the trust is not entitled to approval u/s. 80G of the Act which defeats the purpose of this section. 5. Intension of legislature is clear from the amendment in clause (in) of proviso w.e.f. 01.10.2023. Please find the above in order and grant the approval u/s 80G.”

8 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO 6. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the written submission

vehemently argued that the assessee cannot be directed to perform the

impossible acts. The assessee for the first time applied for 12AB and 80G.

The registration u/s. 12A of the act was granted on 30.05.2024 but the

recognition for 80G was rejected only on the ground that the assessee has

not applied for recognition within the time permitted under the Act, i.e. within

six months from the commencement of the Activities of the trust. The

ground on which the recognition was denied was not a valid ground and in

support of the ground so raised the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon

the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Jodhpur in the case of Bhamashah

Sundarlal Daga Charitable trust in ITA no. 278/Jodh/2023.

submitted that once the assessee failed to file the form no. 10AB clause (iii)

of first proviso to sub-section (5) of sec. 80G of the Act within the time

allowed, the assessee is not eligible to claim the benefit of u/s 80G(5)(iii) of

the Act. Thus, the same is rightly denied to the assessee.

on record. The bench noted that the assessee is registered u/s. 12A of the

Act. The assessee has applied for the recognition u/s. 80G of the Act. On

9 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO this application the ld. CIT(A) while dealing with the facts of the case and

the provision relating to the registration he has stated in the order that “the

provision of clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of

the Act, prescribed various time limit within which the applicant / assessee

is required to file application for approval of trust / institution depending

upon the various circumstances mentioned therein. In the presence case,

the applicant / assessee is provisionally registered u/s. clause (iv) of the

first proviso to sub-section 5 of section 80G of the Act and therefore, the

applicant / assessee was required to file application in Form no. 10AB u/s.

clause (iii) of first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G of the Act within

the time period of at least six months prior to expiry of period of the

provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its

activities, which ever is earlier. From the provisions of clause (iii) of first

proviso to sub section (5) of section 80G of the Act, it is evident that the

time limits prescribed therein is mandatory and commissioner of Income

Tax has no power to condone the delay in filling application in Form no.

10AB.” Thus, the application was rejected merely on the ground that the

same is filed in Form 10AB on 31.12.2022 i.e. after a delay of more than six

months. In the application the assessee has mentioned the date of

incorporation / creation / registration as 14.10.2012. The assessee was

10 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO granted the provisional registration on 4.12.2022. As per the new procedure

prescribed vide Finance Act, 2020 the assessee was suppose to apply on

or before 30.09.2022 but the same was applied on 31.12.2022. While

dealing with the application of the assessee for the permanent recognition

u/s. 80G of the Act, the ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee has begun its

activities in F.Y. 2019-20 itself and the present application filed has not

been filed with the time limit prescribed therein and therefore, the same

considered as non-maintainable. The ld. CIT(E) has relied upon the

decision of high court and supreme court for recognition of the trust u/s.

10(23C) of the Act. Here is the fact of the case is not for exemption of

income u/s. 10(23C) of the Act but it is for recognition u/s. 80G of the Act,

so the fact of the case relied with the fact of the case are different.

However, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the co-

ordinate bench of Jodhpur in the case of Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga

Charitable Trust in ITA no. 278/Jodh/2023 where in that case also the

bench has dealt with this aspect of the filling the application by old trust

where the activities has already begun but the application has been done

later on. The relevant part of the finding is reiterated here in below:

“Findings and analysis:

11 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO 2. In this case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) has rejected the application of the assessee dated 11/01/2023 filed in Form 10AB for approval u/s 80G of the Act, only on one ground that the application has been filed beyond six months of commencement of activities and hence held it as time barred. The Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption) has not discussed the merits of the case. He held that the application is not maintainable. 3. In this case the Assessee had received the Provisional Approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act vide order dated 16/08/2022 for period from 16/08/2022 to A.Y.2025-2026. The assessee has approval u/s.12A(1)(ac) of the Act from A.Y.2022-2023 to A.Y. 2026-2027 (copy filed by assessee in the paper book). 4. Thus, the only limited question before us is whether the application of the assessee was time barred or not? To decide this question, we have to first understand the relevant statutory provisions of the Income tax Act. 4.1 The relevant part of Section 80G(5) of the Income tax Act is reproduced here as under : x x x x 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced in July 2020, hence the assessee was liable to make application for Approval u/s 80G of the Act on or before 30 June 2021 which was extended due to Covid-19 pandemic to 30/09/2022 by various circulars of CBDT. Since assessee made application in January 2023, the ld.CIT(E) held it to be time barred. New Procedure for registration: 6. The new provision for Registration was introduced by Finance Act 2020. There was amendment in the registration procedure by Finance Act 2020. For the first time the Finance Act 2020 introduced the concept of “Provisional Approval”. Also due to the amendment, all the existing Trust/Institutions which were already having registration u/s12AA or 80G(5) were asked to re-apply for registration as per the amendment brought in 2020 and a date was specified before which all those Trust/Institutions already having Registration was required to make a fresh application as per the amendment procedure. 7. In this background we have to interpret the relevant provisions. To interpret the provisions, we shall refer to the Budget Speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister.

12 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO

7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) has observed as under regarding use of Speech of a Minister as a tool in interpretation: Quote , “ Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. This is an accord with the recent trend in juristic thought not only in western countries but also in India that interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible. In fact there are at least three decisions of this Court, one in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 234, the other in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 796 and the third in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR l/[1980] 2 Taxman 501, where the speech made by the Finance Minister, while introducing the exclusionary clause in section 2(15) of the Act, was relied upon by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining what was the reason for introducing that clause.” 7.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved use of Hon’ble Minister’s speech as tool of interpretation to understand the intent of the Statute. Extract of relevant part of Speech of Hon’ble Finance Minister: 8. The Hon’ble Finance Minister in Budget Speech 2020 has said as under : Quote “In order to simplify the compliance for the new and existing charity institutions, I propose to make the process of registration completely electronic under which a unique registration number (URN) shall be issued to all new and existing charity institutions. Further, to facilitate the registration of the new charity institution which is yet to start their charitable activities, I propose to allow them provisional registration for three years. ” Unquote. Finance Bill 2020 : “(vi) an entity making fresh application for approval under clause (23C) of section 10, for registration under section 12AA, for approval under section 80G shall be provisionally approved or registered for three years on the basis of application without detailed enquiry even in the cases where activities of the entity are yet to begin and then it has to apply again for approval or registration which, if granted, shall be valid from the date of such provisional registration. The application of registration subsequent to provisional registration should be at least six months prior to expiry of provisional registration or within six months of start of activities, whichever is earlier”

13 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO 9. Thus these amendments were introduced to simply the procedure of registration of Charitable Trusts/Institutions. The amendment made to simplify a procedure cannot be interpreted in a way that it causes prejudice to the Trust/institutions. 10. Thus, when we read the Budget Speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister 2020 and the Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2020 together, it becomes clear that the concept of Provisional registration was mainly to facilitate the registration of newly formed Trust/Institutions which have not yet begun the activities. The parliament in its wisdom has decided to differentiate between the Trust which were newly formed and the trust which were already doing charitable activities. In the second category of cases, there are again two possibilities, one trust was already doing charitable activities and was already having Registration u/s 12AA or 80G(5) of the Act, such trust were directed to re-apply for registration under new procedure on or before 30th August, 2020 but due to Covid-19 this date was subsequently extended. There is Second category of trust/institutions which were already doing Charitable Activities but had never applied for registration u/s.80G(5) of the Act. It is not mandatory that every charitable trust/institution has to apply for registration u/s.80G(5) of the Act. However, there is no bar in the Act that such trust or institutions cannot apply for registration u/s80G in the new procedure. In these kinds of cases, the Trust/Institute though doing charitable activity may apply first for the ‘Provisional Registration ‘under the Act. After getting the Provisional Registration the Trust/Institution have to apply for Regular registration. These kind of Trust/Institutes will fall under sub clause (iii) of the Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act, since they have obtained Provisional registration. 10.1 In this background, we need to read the sub-clause (iii) of the Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. For ready reference it is again reproduced here under : “ iii) where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier” 10.2 The sub-clause says that the Institution which have provisional registration have to apply at-least six months prior to expiry of the provisional registration or within Six months of commencement of activities, whichever is earlier. 10.3 In continuation of this when we read the ‘sub clause iii of Proviso’ of section 80G(5), which we have already reproduced above, it is clear that the intention of parliament in putting the word “or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier” is in the context of the newly formed Trust/institutions. For the existing Trust/Institution, the time limit for applying for Regular Registration is within six months of expiry of Provisional registration if they are applying under sub clause (iii) of the Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. This will be the harmonious interpretation.

14 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO 11. If we agree with the interpretation of the ld.CIT(E), then say a trust which was formed in the year 2000, performed charitable activities since 2000, but did not applied for registration u/s.80G, the said trust will never be able to apply for registration now. This in our opinion is not the intention of the legislation. This interpretation leads to absurd situation. 11.1 In this context, we will like to refer to observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghase(supra), where in Hon’ble SC observed as under : Quote, “It is a well-recognised rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided. There are many situations where the construction suggested on behalf of the revenue would lead to a wholly unreasonable result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. xxxxxxx It is now a well-settled rule of construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the Court may modify the language used by the Legislature or even 'do some violence" to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction -” Unquote. 11.2 Thus, as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the statutory provision shall be interpreted in such a way to avoid absurdity. In this case to avoid the absurdity as discussed by us in earlier paragraph, we are of the opinion that the words, “within six months of commencement of its activities” has to be interpreted that it applies for those trusts/institutions which have not started charitable activities at the time of obtaining Provisional registration, and not for those trust/institutions which have already started charitable activities before obtaining Provisional Registration. We derive the strength from the Speech of Hon’ble Finance Minister and the Memorandum of Finance Bill 2020. 11.3 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Assessee Trust had applied for registration within the time allowed under the Act. Hence, the application of the assessee is valid and maintainable. 12. Even otherwise, the Provisional Approval is uptoA.Y.2025-26, and it can be cancelled by the ld.CIT(E) only on the specific violations by the assessee. However, in this case the ld.CIT(E) has not mentioned about any violation by the Assessee. Therefore, even on this ground the rejection is not sustainable. 13. However, the ld. CIT(E) has not discussed whether the Assessee fulfils all other conditions mentioned in the section as he rejected it on technical ground. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances we hold that the Assessee had made the application in form 10AB within the prescribed time limit and hence it is valid application. Therefore, we direct the ld.CIT(E) to treat the application as filed within statutory time and verify assessee’s eligibility as per the Act. The ld. CIT(E) shall grant opportunity to the

15 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO assessee. Assessee shall be at liberty to file all the necessary documents before the ld. CIT(E). 14. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Since we have set aside to Ld.CIT(E), we do not intend to adjudicate each ground separately.”

Respectfully following the finding of the co-ordinate bench having similar set

of fact in this case also we direct the application as filed within statutory

time limit and hence we direct the ld. CIT(E) to treat the application as filed

within statutory time and verify the assessee’s eligibility for recognition in

accordance with the law. However, the same shall be decided after giving

proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time the

assessee shall be at liberty to file the necessary evidence / records before

the ld. CIT(E).

In terms of these observations the appeal of the assessee is allowed

for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01/05/2024. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 01/05/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

16 ITA No. 568/JP/2023 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University vs. ITO 1. The Appellant- Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 1(1), Alwar 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 568/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत