MAHARSHI EDUCATION TRUST,SURAT vs. COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 303/SRT/2023Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 July 2023AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided most of the required documents but missed the accounts for FY 2021-22 due to time constraints. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to submit the missing details and provide a hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee-trust applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application because the trust failed to provide audited accounts for FY 2021-22, citing insufficient time.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the registration application under Section 12AB was justified solely on the ground of non-submission of one year's audited accounts due to time constraints, without granting sufficient opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessee by Shri Denish Mashroowala, C.A and Shri Dinesh Radadiya, Advocate. Department by Shri Ashok B. Koli (CIT-DR) Date of Institution of Appeal 01/05/2023 Date of hearing 10/07/2023 Date of pronouncement 10/07/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee-trust is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Ahmedabad [in short the ld. CIT(E)] dated 11/03/2023 in rejecting the application of assessee- trust for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “(1) The learned CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad has rejected application for registration U/s 12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 on procedural ground. The applicant failed to upload the details under bonafide account for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22. (2) Assessee/Trust are already submitted three year financial statement with application (Form No. 10AB) so assessee/trust are under Maharshi Education Trust Vs CIT(E) impression that assessing officer required the same three year financial statement, so same document submitted second time. (3) General notice to all applicant and very short time period for reply, no specific notice for requisite documents.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-trust filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act in Form 10AB in accordance with Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, (in short, the Rules) on 12/09/22. The assessee furnished necessary required details at the time of filing application electronically/online. On receipt of such application, the ld. CIT(E) issued notice dated 10/12/2022 and subsequently on 03/01/2023 for requiring certain details including the Form No. 10AB, certified copies of annual accounts of three years preceeding to the filing of application. The ld CIT(E) recorded that the assessee filed required details alongwith accounts for F.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and provisional copy of F.Y. 2020-21. No accounts for F.Y. 2021-22 was furnished. The ld. CIT(E) on considering such details, noted that in absence of accounts for F.Y. 2021-22, the genuinenity of activities could not be verified vis a vis object of assessee. Even the verification of object as per constitution deed, activities could not be verified. The ld. CIT(E) was of the view that for granting registration under Section 12AB of the Act, he was required to specify about genuineness of activities of the trust or institution and those activities are in consonance of the object of the trust or institution, thus, in absence of required details, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application vide impugned order dated 11/03/2023. 2 Maharshi Education Trust Vs CIT(E) Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that initially the assessee furnished complete details alongwith Form 10AB in accordance with Rule 17A of the Rules while filing/uploading the application for registration on 12/09/2022. The ld. CIT(E) in para 7 of the impugned order, has accepted that the assessee as a trust has uploaded copy of constitution deed alongwith details of registration with Charity Commissioner. The ld. CIT(E) also accepted that the assessee has furnished accounts for F.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and provisional copy of F.Y. 2020-21 as recorded in para 8 of impugned order. However, the assessee could not furnish the accounts for F.Y. 2021-22 due to paucity of time. The assessee trust undertake to furnish further required details, before the ld. CIT(E) for its satisfaction for examining the genuinenity of activities in accordance with object of trust. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that they have very good case on merit and will certainly succeed, if one more opportunity is given to furnish the required details and to reconsider their application afresh.

Maharshi Education Trust Vs CIT(E) 4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(E). The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has not furnished required details and evidences qua the activities, if any, carried out in consonance with the object of the assessee. In absence of such information and evidence, the ld. CIT(E) rightly rejected the application of assessee for registration under Section 12AB of the Act.

5.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of ld. CIT(E) carefully. We find that there is no dispute that the assessee furnished copy of trust deed/instrument of trust, details of registration with charity Commissioner and audited accounts for F.Y. 2017-18 to 2019-20 and provisional copy of F.Y. 2020-21. Only audited accounts for F.Y. 2021-22 was not furnished as required by ld. CIT(E). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that they were allowed very short time to make response and that they are still ready to furnish required details including audited accounts for F.Y. 2021-22. Considering the fact that the assessee has raised specific grounds of appeal

and made submission that they could not furnish accounts for F.Y. 2021-22 due to paucity of time, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(E) to allow the assessee to file requisite details including audited accounts for F.Y. 2021-22. Needless to direct that before deciding the application afresh, the ld. CIT(E) shall grant Maharshi Education Trust Vs CIT(E) opportunity of hearing including to make further submission to prove the object of assessee-trust and its activities. In the result, grounds of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

6. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10 /07/2023 in open court.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →