KEY BOARD WELFARE FOUNDATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Genuineness of Activities and non-compliance

4.1 It is important to mention here that while examining the claim of the assessee u/s 12AB of I.T. Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax has been empowered to call for such documents or information from the trust of institution as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the trust or institution and may also make such inquiries as he may deem necessary in this behalf. Under such powers vested in CIT(E), the applicant was asked to file details like:-

 List of donors  Copies of annual documents of the applicant for last three years.  Bills and vouchers of expenses.  Photograph of activities.  Details of social handle.  Digital footprint.  Details of Bank account details of last three years.

However, the applicant has failed to comply with the letters, despite being given three opportunities details of which given in para -1. In the absence of such documents, it could not determined whether the applicant is genuinely carrying out charitable activity as per its objects. Therefore, assessee claim of registration u/s 12AB is also liable to rejected on ground of not proving its genuineness of activity.

4 KEY BOARD WELFARE FOUNDATION SOCIETY VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 05. In view of above discussion assessee's claim of registration section 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds:-

 Incomplete Form 10AB  Non-registration with RPT Act, 1959.  Genuineness of Activities 3.2 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G(5) of the Act by observing as under:- “1. The applicant filed online application on 26.09.2022 in Form No. 10AB for seeking exemption u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E). 3.5 We have heard the ld. DR and perused material available on record. The Bench noted that ld. CIT(E) has rejected the applications of the assessee u/s 12AB and u/s 80G(5) of the Act as narrated above in the respective appeals. After going through both the orders of the ld. CIT(E), supra, the Bench feels that the assessee was deprived off availing of adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in both the orders (supra). However, the Bench does not want to go into merit of the case but it is imperative that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). In this view of the matter, the Bench feels that the assessee should be given one more chance to contest the case before the ld. CIT(E) and the assessee is directed to produce all the relevant papers concerning both the applications so filed before the ld. CIT(E) to settle the dispute raised hereinabove. Thus, both the appeals of the assessee are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication. 3.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any 6 KEY BOARD WELFARE FOUNDATION SOCIETY VS CIT (E), JAIPUR reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law.

4.0 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29 /08/2023.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29/08/2023 Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- M/s. Key Board Welfare Foundation Society, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 287 & 286/JPR/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत