UMBRELLA FOUNDATION ,BANGALORE V. CIT, EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE

ITA 148/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Umbrella Foundation, a trust established to provide medical relief, which sought permanent registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. Initially granted provisional registration, the trust's application for permanent registration was denied by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) based on the comments from the assessing officer, which stated that the trust had not undertaken sufficient charitable activities. The trust appealed this decision, presenting evidence of its collaborations and activities, which the lower authorities had not adequately considered. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the provided documents and emails, particularly those indicating a partnership with Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital to assist low-income cancer patients across India.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471045 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMAN LUNKAR

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 148/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : N/A M/s. Umbrella Foundation, No. 102, Citadel Apartments, No. 443, 3rd Cross, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034. PAN: AAATU9492Q Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 ORDER PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the Ld.CIT(E) dated 23/12/2024 and relates to the denial of the registration u/s. 12AB of the IT Act. 2. The brief facts of the case as coming out from the order of the Ld.CIT(E) are that the assessee is a trust established to provide medical relief, provide support, assistance and promote medical relief in whatever form including treatments plans for cancer, heart disease, eye care etc. The Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 148/Bang/2025 assessee has got provisional registration u/s. 12AB. Thereafter vide application dated 20/06/2024 assessee applied for permanent registration of 12AB. The Ld. CIT(E), after receiving the application of the assessee, sought comments of the assessing officer viz., the objects and activities of the trust. 2.1 The Ld.AO sent his comments and reported that the assessee has carried out only few charitable activities. The Ld.AO has also commented that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 2,12,278/- as on 30/09/2024 and has also provided online expert consultation service to the needy persons. The AO thereafter concluded that the assessee has not undertaken any other charitable activities and hence not entitled for the registration u/s. 12AB. 3. The Ld.CIT(E) after considering the comments of the AO denied the exemption to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(E), assessee has come up in appeal before us. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the observations of the Ld.AO as well as the Ld.CIT(E) that the assessee has not commenced its activities are factually incorrect. Counsel for the assessee drawn the attention of the Bench to page nos. 82-87 of the paper book and argued that the assessee has tied up Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Mumbai for providing services to the low income cancer patients across India. Counsel for the assessee has also drawn the attention of the Bench to some other pages of the paper book. 6. The Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue drawn the attention of the Bench towards pages 42-46 of the paper book and argued that the provisional income and expenditure account of the assessee would show that there is absolutely no activity has been carried by the assessee. Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 148/Bang/2025 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 8. We observe that there is a mention of receipt of an amount of Rs. 2,12,278/- in the comments sent by the AO to the CIT(E) office. We further observed that there is a finding of the AO that assessee has provided consultation to some patients. However, pages 42-46 of the PB are not matching with the comments of the AO as well as the submissions made by the assessee. We would further observe that there were email correspondences between assessee and Tata Memorial Centre for providing relief to cancer patients across India. These emails and documents, supports the contention of the assessee that the activities of the assessee were duly commenced. These documents have not been examined by lower authorities, which in our view is not correct. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this matter to the file of Ld.CIT(E) and direct the Ld.CIT(E) to consider the application of the assessee along with documentary evidences afresh. Needless to say that the Ld.CIT(E) should grant meaningful opportunity before passing any order. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 19th March, 2025. /MS / Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 148/Bang/2025 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "