AMAGI FOUNDATION,BANGALORE V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1880/BANG/2025

AI Insights

M/s. Amagi Foundation appealed against the cancellation of their registration and approval under section 80G(v) of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(E), Bangalore. The CIT(E) had initially cancelled the registration due to insufficient documentation proving the genuineness of the Trust's activities. During the tribunal hearing, the assessee submitted additional evidence which was deemed relevant but required further examination. The tribunal noted discrepancies and lack of clarity in some of the documents and activities reported by the assessee, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(E) for a detailed review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784354 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Section 80G(v) of the Act, Section 12AB of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KARANJOT SINGH KHURANA
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI.SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1880, 1881/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2025-26 M/s. Amagi Foundation, Raj Alkaa Park Sy No 29/3 & 32/2 4th floor, Kalena Agrahara Village Begur Hobli, Bangalore South, Bannerghatta Road S.O, Bangalore- 560076, Karnataka. PAN : AARPV 6082 G Vs. CIT(E), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Karanjot Singh Khurana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 10.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against separate Orders passed by the CIT(E)in Form 10AB dated 24.06.2025 on identical observations of learned CIT(E) and it was observed that the assessee was required to submit necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the activities of the Trust / Institution and also compliance of such requirements and other law as are material for the purpose of attaining its objects. However the assessee as per discussion in the Order has not fully complied with the requirements. Therefore he cancelled registration and approval granted under section 80G(v) of the Act against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. During the course of haring, assessee has filed Paper Book Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1880, 1881/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 containing Pages 1 to 237 which is uncertified and has also filed additional evidence containing Page Nos.1 to 75. On going through the additional evidence and reasons given for admission of additional evidence as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, we are admitting this additional evidence filed by the assessee and we deem it fit that this additional evidences are relevant to decide the issue. Since the Paper Books filed by the assessee are uncertified therefore we cannot assume that the entire documents were submitted during the course of hearing before learned CIT(E) for substantiating its case. 2. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel submitted that observation as per para No.5 regarding expenditure incurred towards ITC Gardenia for organizing event on 06.10.2024 and amount invoice of Rs.2,36,000/- for leased line connection from STAIR Technology Services were incurred for the benefit of the students. The students were brought by rail and reservation tickets were produced and they also took visit to Cubbon Park and necessary tickets are also produced. The leased line taken is to help students for internet facilities and the assessee donated to a similar charitable organization which is engaged in the charitable activities. Therefore observation of the learned CIT(E) is wrong and assessee providing education facilities to students for their improvements without any benefits to society and its related parties. Therefore institution is eligible for registration and approval. 3. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of learned CIT(E) and submitted that assessee has not taken any charitable activities to satisfy the requirement of registration under section 12AB of the Act and approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. 4. Considering the rival submissions and perusal of the entire materials available on records and additional evidences filed by the assessee, and Orders Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1880, 1881/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 of authorities below, we noted that assessee has produced railway registration tickets but the assessee has not produced list of students and their address. A specific query was raised to the learned Counsel as to from where the students are from, are they from government school or private school and NOC/approval from the concerned school was not produced and what was the mode of selection and purpose of students to visit Bangalore , but the learned Counsel was unable to reply. We further noted that the assessee has incurred expenditure of Rs.2,36,000/- towards leased line connection from Strait Services Ltd.,. A specimen of bill for Rs.70,800/- dated 06.02.2025 is placed at Paper Book Page No.69. The address of the assessee mentioned in bill are matching with the address given in the trust deed but from the financial statements it is noticed that there is no land or building is appearing in the balance sheet or any rent expenditure debited in the expenditure account.. So where the lease line connection shall be installed is not clear. What was the purpose to visit Bangalore of the students are also not clear. Is it within the object clause of the society? All these aspects are to be examined in depth 5. Since assessee has filed additional evidence therefore it requires further in depth examination. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(E) and decide the issue as per law. Assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1880, 1881/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 6 . In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. A common Order passed shall be kept in the respective case files. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore. Dated: 13.11.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "