SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDEL TRUST, AJMER V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

ITA 702/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2068 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMLENDU VERMA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 80G; 12AA

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SIN GH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDEL TRUST, 25, ASHOK MARG, AMASAGAR LINK ROAD, AJMER (RAJ.)-305001 CUKE VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AARTS 2390 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI VIMLENDU VERMA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/02/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(E) DATED 12.07.2017 WHEREIN HE HAS DENIED REGIS TRATION TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST U/S 12AA AS WELL AS U/S 80G OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS WHICH READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 702/JP/2017 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICT ION, BARRED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE, THE SAME KINDL Y BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON T HE FACTS OF THE CASE IN REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ALLEGING TH AT THERE IS NO EXISTENCE OF THE TRUST AND GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF T HE TRUST ARE ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED. THE REGISTRATION SO DENIED BEING CONT RARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, THE LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR KINDLY BE DIR ECTED TO GRANT REGISTRATION AS PRAYED FOR. 2 ITA NOS. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDAL TRUST, AJMER ITA NO.703/JP/2017 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2017 U/S 80G OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BAR RED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE, THE SAME KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON T HE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DENYING THE APPROVAL SOUGHT U/S 80G OF THE ACT MER ELY ALLEGING THAT SINCE THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DENIE D VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 THEREFORE THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE EVEN FOR THE APPROVAL U/S 80G OF THE ACT. THE DENIAL OF THE APPROVAL SO M ADE IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ON FACTS, HENCE THE LD. CIT ( E), JAIPUR KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO GRANT APPROVAL AS PRAYED FOR. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT HE DIDN T WISH TO PRESS GROUND NO. 1 OF BOTH THE SUBJECT APPEALS. HENCE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(E) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WHICH ARE CHARITA BLE IN NATURE, OTHER FACTS REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUS T AND HAS PROCEEDED MERELY ON SUSPICION IN DENYING THE REGISTRATION AS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REITERATED THE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. MERELY BASED ON THE FIELD REPORT OF THE CONCERNED AO THAT THERE WAS NO BOARD (NAME-PLATE) COULD BE FOUND BY THE INSPECTOR AT THE OFFICE STRANGELY EVEN THE LD. CIT(E) REACHED TO A CONCLUSION THAT TH E EXISTENCE OF THE TRUST WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. WHEREAS, ON THE CONTRARY THE A DMITTED FACTS ON RECORD ARE THAT THE TRUST WAS CREATED THROUGH A REG ISTERED DEED OF TRUST DATED 21.06.2016. IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CREATION OF TRUST ON SIMPLE PIECE OF PAPER ONLY BUT THE VERY FACT OF CREATION OF THE TRU ST WAS EVIDENCED BY A DOCUMENT DULY REGISTERED WITH THE APPROPRIATE REGIS TERING AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, IT WAS BINDING EVIDENCE UPON ALL CONCERN ED INCLUDING THE 3 ITA NOS. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDAL TRUST, AJMER DEPARTMENT. FURTHER COPY OF PAN WAS FILED. NOT ONLY THIS, THE TRUST EVEN GOT ITS BANK ACCOUNT OPENED AND DONATIONS WERE GIVE N THROUGH CHEQUE ONLY (WATER COOLER INVOICE NO. 4625 DATED 26.11.201 6). THE BANK STATEMENT WAS FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 8.3.2017 AND REGULAR ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED. THE INSPECTOR ALSO NOTED THE PRESENCE OF SHRI JINDEL (PRESIDENT) AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE ITSELF THIS SH OWS THE TRUST WAS IN OPERATION. NOTABLY, THE TRUST EVEN COMMENCED THE C HARITABLE ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECT IN AS MUCH AS THE INSPEC TOR HIMSELF REPORTED THAT THE TRUST HAD ALREADY DONATED A SUBSTANTIAL AM OUNT OF RS. 2 LAKHS TO BADRI VIDHYALAYA, VAISHALI NAGAR, AJMER AND THERE A PART ALSO DONATED A WATER COOLER TO SHRI CHANDNATH ADARSH VIDHYA MANDIR , NASHIRABAD. IN SUPPORT, COPIES OF LETTERS DATED 13.02.2017 & 16.12 .2016 RECEIPTS, 80G CERTIFICATE ETC. WERE ADMITTEDLY FILED AND THESE FA CTS ARE NOT DENIED. IF A CHARITABLE TRUST WHICH HAS BORN ONLY IN JUNE, 2016 AND HAS BEEN ABLE TO MAKE DONATIONS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR OR SO, I T IS REALLY STRANGE AND RATHER RIDICULOUS YET TO CONCLUDE THAT THE TRUST IT SELF WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AND NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT. A C ERTIFICATE DATED 17.07.2017 BY THE PARSHAD, NAGAR NIGAM, AJMER SHRI DHARMENDRA SHARMA TO THE EFFECT THAT A BOARD SHOWING NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE TRUST IS FOUND AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE AND THE TRUST WAS CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER, SUCH FACTS WERE NOT REBUTTED. THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST OFFICE WAS AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI JINDAL, IS AGAIN A MER E SUSPICION WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH CONDITION PRECEDENT. MOREOVER, SHRI JINDAL PERMITTED THE TRUST TO CARRY OUT THE ACTIVITIES FROM HIS RESIDENCE UNTIL T HE TRUST GETS ITS OWN OFFICE AND ALSO GAVE A NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 10.0 6.2016 TO THIS EFFECT. 2. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF MODERN DEFENCE SHISHKAN SAN STHAN VS. CIT 108 TTJ 732 (JODH.), IT WAS HELD THAT- 4 ITA NOS. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDAL TRUST, AJMER 'CHARITABLE TRUSTREGISTRATION UNDER S. 12AARELEVA NT CONSIDERATIONS CIT REFUSED TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE APPLICANT SOCIETY MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS HIRED A BUILDING OWNED BY CLOSE RELATIVES OF ONE OF ITS TRUSTEESNOT JUSTIFIEDIT IS NOT A SINE QUA NON TO EXAMINE THE ASPECT OF APPLICATION OF INCOME AT THE STAGE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12AAUNTIL REGISTRATION IS GR ANTED, THE QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF FUNDS DOES NOT ARISE AT ALLCIT HAS NOT DOUBTED THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETYTHEREFORE, REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12AA OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GRANTEDACCORDINGLY, CIT IS DIRECTED TO G RANT REGISTRATION TO THE APPLICANT SOCIETY' 3. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSISTENT VIEW O F THE HON'BLE COURTS/TRIBUNALS HAS BEEN THAT AT THE STAGE OF CONS IDERATION OF THE GRANTING OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA, IT IS NOT A SINE QUA NON TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES. IT IS NOT THE STAGE TO EXAMINE APPLICATION OF INCOME WHICH IS A SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS ONLY. WHEN THE LD. CIT(E) HAS NOT DOUBTED THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY IN A OBJECTIVE MANNER, HE COULDN'T HAVE REJECTED THE APP LICATION MERELY ON THIS PRETEXT. 4. IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S VIJAY VARGIYA VANI CHARITABL E TRUST REPORTED IN (2014) 90 CCH 0209, HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HA S OBSERVED THAT:- 'IN OUR VIEW, THE OBJECT OF SECTION 12AA IS TO EXAM INE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST BUT NOT THE INCOME OF THE TRUS T FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE. THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT SIT IN T HE CHAIR OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO LOOK INTO AMOUNT SPENT ON CHARITABLE ACT IVITIES AT THE TIME OF CREATION OF THE TRUST. THE STAGE FOR REVIEWING THE APPLICATION OF INCOME HAS NOT ARRIVED WHEN SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FILE S APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST/SOCIETY.' 5. THE CASE OF VIJAY VARGIYA VANI (SUPRA) HAS RECENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S SHYAM MANDIR COMMITTEE IN DBITA NO. 224/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2017: 'THE CONTENTION WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BY COUNSEL FO R THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE EXPENSES, DIVERSION OR CONTROL BY THE PRIVATE PEOPLE WILL COME ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRUST 5 ITA NOS. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDAL TRUST, AJMER REGISTERED AND THE INCOME USED IS FOR THE CHARITABL E PURPOSE OR NOT AND WHETHER INCOME FROM PUBLIC TRUST IF IT IS GOING FOR ANY PRIVATE USE WILL NEGATIVE THE VERY OBJECT OF THE TRUST ACT WHICH IS THE MAIN INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION, IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE. ' 6. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- CIT & ANR. V/S A.S. KUPPARAJU BROTHERS CHARITABLE F OUNDATION TRUST (2012) 69 DTR 315 (KARN.) FIFTH GENERATION EDUCATION SOCIETY V/S CIT (1990)18 5 ITR 634 (ALL.) CIT V/S RED ROSE SCHOOL (2007) 212 CTR 394 (ALL) CIT V/S SURYA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST (2011) 203 TAXMAN 53 (P&H) 7. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(E) THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WERE NOT OF CHARITABL E IN NATURE. HE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED HOW THE ACTIVITIES WERE NOT GENUINE AN D BOGUS OR FAKE. AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATION THAT NOTICE DATED 10.07.2017 WAS NOT RESPONDED TO. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE REL EVANT POINT OF TIME (LATE) SHRI JINDAL, (PRESIDENT) WAS SUFFERING FROM ILL HEA LTH AND WAS HOSPITALIZED AND THEREFORE, NOBODY MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE IN THE REGISTERED OFFICE/RESIDENCE, THUS THE ASSESSEE MIGHT NOT HAVE RECEIVED THE NOTICE. UNFORTUNATELY, ULTIMATELY, SHRI JAI TILAK JINDAL EX PIRED ON 02.08.2017. HOWEVER, PRIOR THERETO, THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT KNOWI NG THE FACT THAT AN ORDER HAD ALREADY BEEN PASSED ON 12.07.2017 ITSELF, STILL TRIED TO MAKE THE COMPLIANCE AND FILED THE REQUISITE PAPERS ON 18.07. 2017 (I.E. A LETTER DATED 18.07.2017 STATING THAT A BOARD WAS ALREADY AFFIXED AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE AND A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MAIN ENTRY SHOWING THE BOAR D. BUT THOSE PAPERS WERE NOT TAKEN ON RECORD. THESE APART, THE LD. AR A TTENDED TIME TO TIME AND EITHER HE MADE COMPLIANCE OR ELSE HE SOUGHT TIM E. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THE POSITIVE ATTITUDE AND CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT MADE TO AVOID THE COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTO RY NOTICES. AT LEAST 6 ITA NOS. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDAL TRUST, AJMER THIS FACT SHOULD NOT HAVE ADVERSELY INFLUENCED THE LD. CIT(E). THE LD CIT(E) MERELY RELIED UPON THE REPORTS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHO THEMSELVES WERE NOT SATISFIED, THEN HOW THE LD CIT( E) COULD HAVE BEEN SATISFIED OF THE ALLEGATIONS. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(E ) MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA. 8. REGARDING DENIAL OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF T HE ACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(E) HAS REFUSED SIMPLY AS A CONSEQUENCE TO THE REJECTION OF 12AA REGISTRATION HENCE, IT IS CONSEQU ENTIAL. HOWEVER, ASSUMING, THE REJECTION OF 12AA REGISTRATION IS UPH ELD DOES NOT BY ITSELF MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVES GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 80G MORE PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE LD. CIT(E) HAS NOT ADVE RSELY COMMENTED UPON ANY OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SEC.80G(5). HENC E, THE LD. CIT(E) KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 80G (5). 4. PER CONTRA, LD. CIT(DR) RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(E) AND SUBMITTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF NON COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(E) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE LD CIT(E) MAY ACCORDINGLY BE UPHELD. 5. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS SO ADVANC ED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT(E) U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IT IS STATED THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 27.1.2017. THEREAF TER, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 8.3.2017 SEEKING CERTAIN INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS A LONGWITH ORIGINAL TRUST DEED FOR VERIFICATION. THE MATTER WAS SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON COUPLE OF DATES BUT ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT EVERY TIME AND THE REAFTER, A FINAL OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED VIDE LETTER DATED 28.06.20 17 SCHEDULING THE HEARING 7 ITA NOS. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDAL TRUST, AJMER IN THE MATTER FOR 10.07.2017, HOWEVER THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE AND HENCE, THE MATTER WAS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 6. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(E) REFERS TO THE REPORT OF THE ITO (E), WARD AJMER DATED 5.4.2017, WHO WAS ASKED TO VERIFY THE G ENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IN HIS REPORT, T HE ITO HAS STATED THAT THE WARD INSPECTOR WAS INSTRUCTED TO CARRY OUT THE NECE SSARY INSPECTION AND AS PER THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR, AT THE ADDRESS OF THE TRUST SO GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO SIGN BOARD OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WHICH WAS FOUND. FURTHER, ON THE REVIEW OF THE LIST OF TRUSTEES, IT APPEARS THAT IT IS A FAMILY TRUST AND THE TRUST IS BEING OPERATED ONLY ON PAPERS. HE REFERS TO THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND TAKING THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION AN D THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST, HE STATED THAT THE SAME DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CORRE CT. HENCE, THE ITO, WARD- AJMER, DID NOT RECOMMEND THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AS WELL AS 80G OF THE ACT. 7. FURTHER, REPORT OF THE WARD INSPECTOR WHO ACTUAL LY CARRIED OUT THE INSPECTION AND BASIS WHOSES REPORT, THE ITO HAS GI VEN HIS REPORT ALSO FIND MENTION IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E), HENCE, WE D EEM IT FIT TO REFER TO THE SAME AS WELL. IN HIS REPORT, THE INSPECTOR HAS STA TED THAT HE HAS GONE AND VISITED THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AT THE GIV EN ADDRESS WHERE HE MET SHRI JAI TILAK JINDEL, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT/HEAD OF THE TRUST. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT SHRI JINDEL INFORMED HIM THAT THE TRUST HAS DE NOTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LACS TO BADRI VIDHYALAYA AT VAISHALI NAGAR, AJMER A ND THE TRUST HAS ALSO DONATED A WATER COOLER TO SHRI CHANDNATH ADARSH VID HYA MANDIR, NASIRABAD. BESIDES THESE TWO ACTIVITIES, THERE IS NO OTHER CHA RITABLE ACTIVITY WHICH HAS BEEN DONE BY THE TRUST. THERE IS NO SIGN BOARD OF THE TRUST AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS WHICH IS THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI JINDEL, WHER E HE COULD NOT FIND ANY OFFICE OF THE TRUST BEING OPERATED. HE ACCORDINGLY STATED THAT THE TRUST IS 8 ITA NOS. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDAL TRUST, AJMER BEING OPERATED ONLY ON PAPERS AND BASED ON THE LIST S OF THE TRUSTEES, IT APPEARS TO BE A FAMILY TRUST. 8. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(E) ISSUED A SPECIFIC SHO W CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER NO. 1381 DATED 1/6/2017 WHEREIN THE REP ORT OF THE INSPECTOR AND THE ITO, WARD- AJMER WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF T HE ASSESSEE AND ITS EXPLANATION/CLARIFICATION WAS SOUGHT ALONG WITH ORI GINAL DOCUMENTS FOR VERIFICATION AS SOUGHT EARLIER ON 9.3.2017. IN RESP ONSE, SHRI G. M JAIN APPEARED AND PRODUCED CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TRUST D EED AND AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT TO FILE REPLY/EXPLANATION REGARDING OTHE R MATTERS. THE LD. CIT(E), THEREAFTER, NOTED THAT IN SPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUN ITIES BEING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE ON ITS PART AND IN VIEW OF NATURAL JUSTICE, A FINAL OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED WITH THE REQUEST TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED DETAILS/INFORMATION/CERTIFICATION ON 10/07 /2017 AND ON THE SAID DATE ALSO, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(E) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO THING TO SAY IN THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE EXISTENCE OF TH E TRUST AND GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST IS NOT ESTABLISHED. IT WAS HELD THAT BESIDES OBJECTS, THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES BEING UNDERTAKEN BY T HE TRUST IS TO BE EXAMINED. IN VIEW OF THE AOS REPORT AND FACTS OF THE CASE, T HE EXISTENCE/ GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES IS NOT ESTABLISHED. THE APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WAS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED BY THE LD CIT(E) VIDE ORDE R DATED 12/07/2017. 9. FURTHER, GIVEN THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA IS A PRE-CONDITION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 80G OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS HE LD NOT ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 80G OF THE ACT AND ITS APPLICATION SEE KING REGISTRATION U/S 80G WAS ALSO REJECTED BY AN ORDER OF EVEN DATE WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR THE SAME AFTER COMPLETING THE REQUISITE DETAILS. 9 ITA NOS. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDAL TRUST, AJMER 10. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WHICH WAS BEING MANAGED BY SHRI JINDAL WHO WAS APPARENTLY NOT KEEPING WELL AT THE RELEVANT POINT IN TIME AND HAS SINCE EXPIRED. WE A LSO NOTE THAT THE LD CIT(E) HAS SCHEDULED THE HEARING IN THE MATTER ON COUPLE O F OCCASIONS HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE AND THE REASON FOR THE SAME SEEMS TO BE THE ILL-HEALTH OF SHRI JINDAL AND IN SUCH A SITUATION, BOTH THE IMPUNGED ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BE FORE THE LD CIT(E) AND PUT FOREWARD ITS CONTENTIONS AND IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME , THERE ARE NO FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(E) EITHER ACCEPTING OR NEGATING THE ASSE SSEES CONTENTIONS, WE DONT THINK IT WOULD BE CORRECT FOR US TO COMMENT E ITHER ON THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(E) OR THE CONTENTIONS NOW BEING ADVANCED BEFORE US, HOWSOEVER STRONG SUCH CONTENTIONS MIGHT BE OR THE MERIT SUCH CONTENT IONS MIGHT CARRY. 11. IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO GRANT OF APPROVALS AS IN THE INSTANT CASE WHICH ARE ONES IN A LIFETIME EXERCISE BOTH FOR THE REVEN UE AND FOR THE ASSESSEE TRUST UNLESS THERE ARE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS WHIC H MERIT WITHDRAWAL/CANCELLATION, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE MATTER IS EXAMINED JUDICIOUSLY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN THE SPIRIT OF THE PROVISIONS AS ENUMERATED I N THE STATUTE AND AS JUDICIOUSLY INTERPRETED FROM TIME TO TIME, AFTER HE ARING BOTH THE PARTIES. IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE THEREFORE BEL IEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE DESERVES ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRE SENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD CIT(E) GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH IT COULDNT ATTEND TO THE SCHEDULED HEARINGS FROM TIME TO TIME. 12. WE ACCORDINGLY SET-ASIDE BOTH THE MATTERS TO TH E FILE OF THE LD CIT(E) TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL ATTEN D TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND 10 ITA NOS. 702 & 703/JP/2017 SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI JINDAL TRUST, AJMER SUPPORT IN TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE SAID PROCEEDING S AND SUBMIT DESIRED INFORMATION/DOCUMENTATION AS SO DESIRED AND DIRECTE D BY THE LD CIT(E). THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE THE CONTENTIO NS SO ADVANCED BEFORE US AND THE LD CIT(E) SHALL CONSIDER THE SAME AS PER LA W. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE TRU ST ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/02/2018. SD/- SD/- ( JH FOT; IKY JKO ) ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ( VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL; /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 12/02/2018. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S SHRI SHREEKRISHNA GULABDEVI J INDAL TRUST. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE CIT(E), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT. 4. THE CIT (4), 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO 702 & 703/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR