COMMUNITY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH WORK,JAIPUR V. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 658/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a trust, Community for the Advancement of Education & Research, which applied for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application was initially rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur, on two grounds: non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and lack of certain documents to verify the genuineness of the trust's charitable activities. The trust appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found that the first ground was no longer valid due to subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. However, the issue of the genuineness of the trust's activities remained unresolved, leading to the remand of the case for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35107 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 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: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

"aaax ariteta afar, cage =arauls, wage IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” Bench, JAIPUR ft ude SAA TERMITE, oa Uae va Al VT HAR, wees G Tat BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM siaex ariiet G. /ITA No. 658/JP/2024 Community for the | 4 | CIT, Exemption, Jaipur. Advancement of Education &| VS. Research, B 8, Dev Ngar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018 Rajasthan, India — ware) G. / oiangar W./ PAN No.: AABTCO923F atreret / Appellant yeaeit / Respondent faethe at aie 8 /Assessee by : Sh. R.P.Sharma, CA. Ward HY sie W/Revenue by: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR. Gas Hl ake /Date of Hearing : 14/11/2024 SUNT Hl As / Date of Pronouncement: / /11/2024 ORDER 1, Appellant herein, claimining itself to be a Trust, applied to Commissioner of Income Tax leanetion) Jaipur, on 25.9.2023 for registration under section 12 AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Z, Said application has been rejected, and that is how, the applicant is before this Appellate Tribunal. 3. Learned CIT(E) rejected the application on two grounds. Firstly, because the applicant had not got itself registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Secondly, because, in absence of certain documents, the applicant having not complied with show cause notice raising queries, it could not be determined whether the applicant is genuinely carrying out charitable activity. | Arguments heard. File perused. Discussion (Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959) At the outset, it may be highlighted that in the paper book presented on behalf of the appellant before this Appellate Tribunal, at page 36, copy of Registration of the applicant Trust under Rajasthan Public Trust Act has been filed. Learned AR submits that the Trust stands registered on 5.11.2024, and as such, the first objection for rejection of the applicant does not survive any more. 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) Coming to the second ground for rejection of the application, Learned CIT(E) recorded at page 9 and 10 of the impugned order the reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the activities of the applicant were found to be non-genuine. In the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) has observed that as claimed by the applicant Poddar International College, Jaipur has taken over the campus for further running the various educational programmes; that upon taking over of the trust, the trustees were noticed to have changed and even addressed was shown to have changed; that the ea : (2? 10. applicant trust was found to have been got registered with Registrar of Companies only with change in its address; that the applicant did not furnish explanation as to whether change in Vidhan/deed was registered with ROC; that the applicant did not even furnish order passed by ROC regarding transfer of institution alongwith asset,and liabilities. Learned CIT(E) also specified at page 9 and 10 of the impugned order the details which the applicant trust did not furnish, but, which were otherwise necessary for being examined on the point of reginiaion under section 12 A. We have drawn attention of learned AR for the appellant to the above observations at page 9 and 10 of the impugned order, and enquired as to whether all said details were or were not asked for by Learned CIT(E). Thereupon, Learned AR has stated at bar that actually the averment put forth by the applicant to the effect that Poddar International College, Jaipur had taken over the campus for further running the various educational programmes is not correct, and that it has crept in the pleadings inadvertantly. He further states at tHe bar that actually there has been no taking over of the campus by adaay International College. As per rules of pleadings, only true facts or averments are to be put forth while drafting or presenting any such application. In case, the abovesaid averment ut incorrect, it should have been timely rectified by taking recourse to law. Admittedly, no such step was taken by the assessee for amendment of the pleadings or to strike off the wrong claim or averment. (39 11. We find that in view of the specific averment regarding taking over of the campus by Poddar Intrnational College, Learned CIT(E) was required to conduct enquiry in this regard and look into all the relevant documents or details, about which he has mentioned at page 9 and 10 of the impugned order. 12. However, learned AR for the appellant submits that as regards the details, stated to have not been furnished by the applicant trust, no show cause notice was issued by CIT(E). In support of this submission, learned AR has submitted copies of the 3 notices dated 13.1.2024; 20.2.2024 and 9.3.2024. 13. As per copies of the 3 show cause notices, no details or document as regards the factum of taking over of the campus by Poddar International College appears to have been requisitioned by the office of CIT(E). Furthermore, as regards notice dated 20.2.2024 issued by the said office to the applicant for 26.2.2024, learned CIT(E) specifically mentioned in para 1 of the impugned order that in response thereto, assessee filed adjournment application for 10 days and that while allowing said request, the assessee was given time upto 13.3.2024, vide letter dt. 9.3.2024, and as such the assessee submitted reply thereto. But the fact remains that we do nest find that in any of the notices the details or the information bulleted at page 9 and 10 of the impugned order was requisitioned from the applicant. (4) Eenclusion Con cluseon 14. 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 reasonable opportunity to the applicant-appellant of being heard. Result ee 15. Asa 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. 16. Appellant-Applicant to appear before Learned CIT(E). 17. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on /¥ 114112024. — _Sq- —- Sd— (ets aree-oeni ) aA) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAIT) (NARIN DER KUMAR) creat waea / Accountant Member wate wees / Judicial Member fv wage / Jaipur festa / Dated:- /4 /11/2024 (5) areat at ufefefteafra / Copy of the order forwarded to: The Appellant. yeueit / The Respondent. sraerargeat / The CIT, Jaipur. foarte ufaPe, srarepeaicta aftrer, cayx/DR, ITAT, Jaipur aréega/ Guard File ITA No. 658/JPR/2024) arearger / By order, ww wee toler / Asstt. Registrar "