ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. It found that the assessee's books of accounts were maintained regularly and audited under various laws. The AO's allegations regarding the non-maintenance of stock registers and an absurd computation of bogus sales based on a human probability test were not supported by evidence. The revenue failed to controvert the evidence produced by the assessee to substantiate the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) acted in a hurried and irrational manner by rejecting the application solely based on the pending RPT Act registration, which was subsequently granted. The genuineness of activities is also not relevant at this stage.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the application solely based on the nomenclature like 'Samaj' without considering the broader objects of the trust, which aim to benefit society at large. The Tribunal also noted that section 13(1)(b) is relevant at the assessment stage, not during registration. The activities, including running a Dharamshala and providing educational and medical help, were considered charitable.

The Tribunal held that the AO conducted detailed inquiries and applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, satisfying himself with the genuineness of the agricultural income claim. The PCIT cannot revise the assessment order based on a different opinion or mere apprehension. The revisionary proceedings were initiated without a proper show cause notice on the specific issues raised in the revisionary order, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBC(2)(b) exempts donations to religious and charitable trusts, and the assessee's trust, having both objectives, is eligible for this exemption. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for investment in the university building, purchase of books, and the endowment fund as application of income for charitable purposes.