VANITA NATWARLAL SANGHAVI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2519/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 October 2015AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the Director's decision, finding no material evidence presented by the assessee to demonstrate that it carried out activities in furtherance of its objects. Therefore, the rejection of the registration application was deemed justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejected the application, noting that the trust's activities did not align with its stated religious objects.

What were the issues?

Whether the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the application for registration under section 12A when the assessee's activities did not align with its stated objects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 28.10.2015Pronounced: 28.10.2015

PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 24.1.2013 passed by Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejecting the application filed by the assessee seeking registration under section 12A of the Act.

2.

This appeal was posted for hearing on several occasions and last opportunity was given to the assessee by sending notice by registered post 2

on 18.9.2014. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte without the presence of assessee.

3.

We heard the ld.DR and perused the record. We notice that the assessee filed an application before the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) for seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act on 11.7.2012. The ld. DIT(E) noticed that the object of the assessee-trust was religious in nature. Further, he noticed that the assessee has not carried out any activity in accordance with the object. Hence, ld.DIT(E) took the view that the genuineness of the activities carried on by the assessee could not be verified and accordingly rejected the application filed by the assessee.

4.

We notice that the assessee has not filed any material before us to show that it did carry on any activity in furtherance of its object. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the decision reached by the DIT(E) in rejecting the application.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 28th Oct, 2015. घोषणध खुरे न्मधमधरम भें ददनधंकः 28th Oct, 2015. को की गई । (संजम गगग/SANJAY GARG) ( बी.आर.बास्करन / B.R. BASKARAN) न्मधनमक सदस्म / JUDICIAL MEMBER रेखध सदस्म / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai: 28th Oct, 2015. व.नन.स./ SRL , Sr. PS 3

आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीरधथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- concerned 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT concerned 4. ववबधगीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई /

5.

DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned गधर्ग पधईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधनुसधय/ BY ORDER,सहधमक ऩंजीकधय (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →