CONFRERIA DE N SRA DO BOM SUCCESSO DA CAPELA DE DONGORIM MANDUR,MANDURA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

Since facts and issues involved in these appeals are identical & common, on rival party’s common request and for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for being disposed off by a common and consolidated order. In adjudicating these appeals together, the is taken as lead case, consequently our adjudication laid in subsequent paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining four appeals and be read as such.

Thus, in effect the separate applications filed by the captioned appellants towards seeking registration u/s 12AB were rejected for like reasons. The appellants by these appeals seeks to remand the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with an undertaking to appear and comply with the provisions of section 17K r.w.s. 12AB to as to enable ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 10 & 238/PAN/2025, & 249/PAN/2025 & the Ld. CIT(A) decide the issue of registration on merits of the case on the basis of materials and in terms of applicable provisions of law.

Before we conclude to adjudicate the request for remand it shall be immensely be important to state that, the statue empowers the registering authority to call any such documents or information so as to satisfy himself with twin prescriptions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Act viz; (1) genuineness of activities (2) Compliance with all applicable laws etc., and in order to draw conclusion over satisfaction the registering authority is duty bond to carry out wholesome & autonomous exercise according to nature/character of charitable purpose vis- a-vis the applicant engaged into.

In arriving to conclusion over satisfaction about the genuineness of activities and compliance of applicable law, the registration proceedings is expected to vouch predominantly; (a) whether applicant is a public ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 10 & 238/PAN/2025, & 249/PAN/2025 & charitable trust established in accordance with applicable Indian Law & in operation as such [Constitution/Establishment] (b) whether all the entries of object clause are in consonance with the ‘charitable purpose’ as defined by section 2(15) of the Act [Objects] (c) whether there exist any implied or express provision in the constitutional & other administrative documents/policies etc., entitling any right or power to the trust/trustee carry to engage (by itself or through agent/appointees) into any activities outside the ambit of registered objects [Rights/Power] (d) whether all the activities and operation are strictly carried out in line with the registered objects of ‘charitable in nature’ [Activity] and finally (e) whether it is compliant of all the applicable law in all respect and around the clock [Compliance]. Any proceedings culminated without vouching these former key factual (Corac) in our considered view would prima-facie be deficient as it may lead to absurd conclusion. ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 10 & 238/PAN/2025, & 249/PAN/2025 & 9. In the instant case we find that, predominantly for the want of evidential documents and failure on the part of appellants to explain the fulfilment of condition for grant of registration the Ld. CIT(E) had to culminate the impugned registration proceedings without former wholesome & autonomous exercise. The rejections are primarily attributable to non-compliance on the part of these appellants. The reasons behind such non- compliance as stated that, in the course of proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) only two opportunities were provided, pursuant to show cause notice the appellant had adduced certain documents & explained them. But without further communication or without confronting the negative observation the Ld. CIT(A) culminated the proceedings by rejecting these applications. There is nothing on record to suggest otherwise. On the other hand, the Revenue could hardly assail the common submission and prayers of these appellants nor it pull to piece the factual matrix with any deprecative material. ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 10 & 238/PAN/2025, & 249/PAN/2025 & 10. It is a trite law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ‘Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad’ reported in 8 SCC 266 (SC), that ‘if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner’. It shall be worthy to also underline that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity. In view of High court of Patna’s decision in ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society’ [2003, 262 ITR 377 (Pat)]’ in the event where assessee is deprived of reasonable opportunity and time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate its claim, any consequential order passed by the Revenue against the assessee violates the basic principle of natural justice, hence such action is unstainable in law. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 10 & 238/PAN/2025, & 249/PAN/2025 & 11. In view of the former ratio, the Ld. CIT(E)’s failure to confront negative satisfaction or his dissatisfaction to these appellants before rejecting applications were indeed against the provisions of statute as the action of rejection suffered from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity to negate the adverse observation or dissatisfaction over compliance etc. For the reasons these impugned orders cannot be sustained, hence set-aside for their remand to the Ld. CIT(E) for de- nova adjudication in accordance with law with a direction to accord not less than three effective opportunities in each case.

In result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.