JAI SHIVRAI PRATISHTHAN,PUNE vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Tersely stated common facts borne out of these case records are; 2.1 The assesse is a registered public charitable trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee was accorded a provisional registration u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) & 80G of the Act by the Revenue on 01/12/2022. On the strength and pursuant to such provisional registration the assessee vide its application in Form No 10AB on 15/02/2023 sought regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) under the category of charitable trust established for preservation of

The case was called twice; none appeared on bequest of the assessee. After considering the issue involved in the present appeal, we deem it fit to proceed to adjudicate the issue ex-parte u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 with the able assistance from the Revenue

We have heard Ld. DR; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of ITAT Rules, perused material placed on record. We note that, by the impugned order passed u/s 12AB(4) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) denied to grant 12AB registration on solitary reason that the assessee failed to file the copy of provisional registration granted to it u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act. Insofar as the application for 80G is concerned the, appellant’s failure to place on records key documents viz; self- certified copy of 80G(5), proof of identity of main trustees, year-wise list of donation received by it, list of donors, note on activities along with supporting credible evidences, detail of business undertakings (if any), detail so fulfilment of conditions provided in clause (i) to (v) of 80G(5) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application.

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; (A) genuineness of activities (B) 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 the applicant engaged into. We are aware that there is neither a straight fit jacket/benchmark nor a litmus test either prescribed in the statute or in any of the judicial precedents which per-se assist to draw a positive conclusion over genuineness of charitable purpose/activities so as to assist registering authority in granting registration u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act. It is also true that unless the registering authority draws a positive satisfaction about the same, all applications deserves rejection irrespective of (i) year of establishment, (ii) nature of applicant’s constitution (iii) piousness of objects vis-à-vis its activities enumerated in the object clauses (iv) nature of operation actually carried out (v) source of income, donation etc. generated, (vi) application of income and (vii) compliance of applicable law etc. This however does not authorise the registering authority to vacuously reject the application sheerly on the basis of any of the former items. The independent and wholesome exercise is not only necessary but it is a must & mandate in arriving at conclusion over satisfaction about genuineness of charitable activities, else exercise and the culmination turns out arbitrary, which is verboten in law.

In arriving to conclusion over satisfaction about the genuineness of activities and compliance of applicable law, the registration proceedings is expected to vouch predominantly; (i) whether applicant is a public charitable trust established in accordance with applicable law & in operation as such [Constitution/Establishment] (iii) whether all the entries of object clause are in

In the instant twin appeals, we find that, owning to appellant’s failure to adduce requisite document & credible material the impugned proceedings were admittedly culminated without aforestated wholesome verification, therefore in larger interest of justice we set-aside for according one more opportunity to the appellant. In consequence we remit these two files back to the Ld. CIT(E) to decide the issue of registration de-nova in accordance with law after according two effective opportunities to the appellant assessee in each of these cases separately.

These appeals in result are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. U/r 34 of ITAT Rules, these orders are pronounced in the open court on this Monday, 03rd day of June, 2024.