AMRITAM PRASADAM FOUNDATION,JAIPUR V. CIT (E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 651/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Amritam Prasadam Foundation, a trust, which appealed against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur, rejecting its application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on three grounds: (1) the trust was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, (2) the activities of the trust were not in accordance with its objects, and (3) the trust's activities were found to be non-genuine. The tribunal found that the matter deserved to be remanded to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the trust an opportunity to comply with the necessary directions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33668 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 13; 12

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ”A” Bench, JAIPUR aT els GAIT VIM, CS UA va A Ae GR, wera & wae BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM AAPL BAU B./ITA No. 651/IP/2024 | Amritam Prasadam Foundation | #14 9, Ganesh Colony, Brahmpuri Vs. Road, Jaipur 3020028 Rajasthan, India Variceal G. / Tegan @./ PAN No.: AAKAA3386J areal / Appellant yeaeit “Respondent CIT, Exemption, Jaipur. fred a1 site 8/Assessee by : Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal, CA. Word HY sie W/Revenue by: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR. UAag HY aXe /Date of Hearing > 14/11/2024 Veg HT As / Date of Pronouncement: /4 /11/2024 ORDER 1. Appellant herein, claims itself to be a Trust. It filed an application before Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Jaipur, on 22.9.2023 for registration under section 12 AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Vide impugned order said application has been rejected. That is how, the applicant is before this Appellate Tribunal. 3. Learned CIT(E) rejected the application on following 3 grounds: Firstly, because the applicant had not got itself registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Secondly, because activity of the trust was not in accordance with the objects and application of income was not towards objects of the trust and it was a specific violation as per explanation (a) of section 12 AB (4) of the Act. Thirdly, because applicant’s activities were found to be non-genuine. Arguments heard. File perused. Discussion (Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959) Admittedly, during pendency of the application seeking registration under section 12 AB of the Act, the applicant had not been yet been registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. In the course of arguments, learned AR for the appellant has submitted that the appellant Trust has been registered under the said Act, 1959. It needs to be highlighted that in the undated written submissions (depicting next date of hearing as 9.7.2024), CA for the appellant specifically mentioned that registration of the applicant Trust under the Act of 1959 has been received. Within brackets, it was mentioned that copy was being submitted therewith. But, what has actually been submitted with the written submissions is only a photostat copy of the Vidhan/deed of the applicant trust, purported to have been got attested from Notary Public on 28.10.2023. Prefixed to it, is copy of paper bearing particulars regarding submission of application on 29.4.2024 to obtain certified copy from the office of Assistant Commissioner (First), Devsthan Department, Jaipur. 10. In other words, no copy of certificate of registration of the applicant trust under the Act of 1959 has been submitted. Mewes Leeman CA for the appellant pleads inadg mars in this regard, but, reiterates at Bar that the applicant trust has been registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. In this regard, suffice it to say, that factum of registration of the applicant Trust is to be considered by CIT(E). (Non genuineness of activities of the applicant & Application of income beyond the objects of the trust) Coming to the second and third grounds for rejection of the application, Learned CIT(E) recorded at page 11 to 14 of the impugned order the reasons to arrive at the ape ot that the activities of the applicant were found to be non: genuine ‘and that income was found to have been applied beyond the objects of tt the trust. In the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) has observed that in reply to the letter dt. 7.12.2023 issued by his office, the applicant submitted only copy of income and expenditure accounts, and as such, show cause notice dated 5.12.2023 was issued but,the applicant did not furnish any reply thereto. sa areal Furthermore, in para 4.5 of the impugned order, learned CIT(E) bulleted the points which led him to hold that the activities of the applicant trust Weird heresies calling for rejection of the application for registration. Learned CIT(E) alse specified at page 13 of the impugned order the details which the applicant trust did not furnish, but which were Ld 12. otherwise necessary for being examined on the point of registration under section 12 A. We have drawn attention of learned AR for the appellant to the above observations at page 13 and 14 of the impugned order, and enquired as to why all these details were not submitted to CIT(E) despite service of notices. Thereupon, Learned AR has stated at Bar that books of accounts and vouchers could not be produced before Ld. CIT(E) as Shri Mahesh Kumar, Accountant of the applicant Trust was out of city, and that this is a case where sufficient opportunity was not afforded by CIT(E) to the applicant of being heard. In support of this submission, learned AR has referred to affidavit dated 8.7.2024 of Shri Ravindra Khandelwal, Treasurer of the applicant trust. On going through the grounds of appeal, as available in Form No.36, We find that there is no such averment that books of accounts and vouchers could not be produced before Ld. CIT(E) as Shri Mahesh Kumar, Accountant of the applicant Trust was out of city. No such plea appears to have been put forth even before CIT(E) to seek adjournment for production of record or details. Secondly, no affidavit of Shri Mahesh Kumar, the concerned Accountant has been furnished. The deposition of Shri Ravindra Khandelwal, Treasurer, is not the best evidence about the fact required to be testified by the former.. Thirdly, in the abovesaid affidavit, nowhere it has been specified as to for how long Shri Mahesh Kumar was out of Jaipur. Even the period during which Shri Mahesh Kumar is alleged to be out of station, has not been specified in the affidavit, for the reasons best known to the deponent. -20F Fourthly, learned CIT(A) has emphagied in the impugned order that earlier application presented by the spelen trust seeking registration was rejected vide order dated 20.9.2022 due to the reason that it could not prove genuineness of its activities. In other words, as observed by learned CITIA), the applicant trust once again failed to establish this fact. We have ath attention of learned AR of the appellant to said observations in the impugned order and asked him to address on this point, but learned AR has not furnished any satisfactory explanation in this regard. The previous application was admittedly rejected on 20.9.2022 and fresh application seeking registration was presented on 22.9.2023. It remains unexplained as to whether the applicant trust accepted the previous order dated 20.9.2022 or challenged the same before the Appellate Tribunal or by way of any other remedy. Para 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of the impugned order reveal the information called for by CIT(E) and also highlights the aspects on which the applicant trust could not satisfy as regards genuineness of its activities. tolud wee Learned CIT(E) has specified in para 4.5 the documents by the applicant trust. In view of the above discussion, it can safely be said that the applicant trust has been very casual in pursuing the application. 13. 14. As regards application of the income, Ld. CIT(E) observed in the impugned order that the applicant failed to furnish any reply to the show cause notice dated 5.12.2023. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that the applicant-appellant has requested for only one opportunity to comply with the directions issued by CIT(E) as |the points/issues discussed under ground No.2 and 3 rejected vide vaueced order. From the written submissions, we find that already application under section 80G(5) of the Act earlier rejected by CIT(E) is stated to have ben restored by this Appellate Tribunal on 20.12.2023. This submission hes not been disputed on behalf of the Revenue. Conclusion In the given situation, we find that this is a fit case where the matter deserves to be remanded to learned CIT(E) for decision on the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the applicant-appellant to comply with its directions, in accordance with law, but subject to costs for the casual approach adopted by it in the proceedings before CIT(E). Result As a result of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and the matter is remitted to the Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the applicant- appellant of being heard and to comply with all his directions, in accordance with law. 15. 16. 17. Order pronounced in the open court on /47/11/2024. The applicant-appellant trust is burdened with costs of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Receipt in proof of deposit of costs to be produced before Learned CIT(E), before commencement of the proceedings there. Appellant-applicant to appear before Learned CIT(E). File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. — sar Reiss TITS ) (HAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) creat wera / Accountant Member ait wee / Judicial Member pL wagR / Jaipur festa / Dated:- /4¥ /11/2024 ARWN areer ot ufaferftemfra/ Copy of the order forwarded to: The Appellant. yet / The Respondent. armerargat/ The CIT, Jaipur. foarte fare, sraarattea aftreet, qayx/DR, ITAT, Jaipur tTreniga/ Guard File ITA No. 651/JP/2024) arene / By order, Wea uvitor / Asstt. Registrar "