9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 706 - AT - Income TaxDenial of registration of the Trust u/s 12AB - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - HELD THAT - Assessee was given only two notices one dated 06.09.2024 and another dated 23.10.2024 and therefore we feel that in the interest of justice one more chance should be given to the assessee trust to re-submit or argue the case before the CIT(E) so that he will be in a position reappraise the case to the ld. CIT(A). The Bench adopts the lenient view and feels that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to advance the documents before the ld. CIT(E) as to registration of the trust u/s 12AB of the Act. Hence in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case the matter is restored to the file of the ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication by providing adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee is also required to submit the documents as demanded by the CIT(E) with regard to registration of the Trust u/s 12AB of the Act. Thus this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Since we have restored the appeal of the assessee with regard to the registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication therefore the outcome of appeal of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act is consequential in nature and is also restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E). Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in these appeals are: (a) Whether the cancellation of provisional registration granted under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to the trust was valid, particularly in light of the trust's claim of engaging in charitable activities and maintaining proper accounts. (b) Whether the rejection and cancellation of provisional recognition under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act was justified, given the trust's assertions regarding its charitable objectives and compliance with audit and accounting requirements. (c) Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in cancelling the provisional registrations without granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. (d) Whether the assessee's delay in filing appeals should be condoned. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a) and (b): Validity of Cancellation of Provisional Registration under Sections 12AB and 80G Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 12AB of the Act governs the registration of charitable trusts and institutions, which is a prerequisite for claiming exemption under the Act. Provisional registration may be granted initially, subject to fulfillment of conditions and submission of requisite documents. Section 80G provides for approval of donations made to charitable institutions, enabling donors to claim deductions. Both provisions empower the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) to cancel provisional registration or approval if the applicant fails to satisfy the conditions or comply with procedural requirements. Further, the second proviso to section 80G(5) and section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) stipulate that if the Commissioner is not satisfied with the applicant's activities or compliance, he shall reject the application and cancel any provisional registration granted. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The ld. CIT (Exemption) rejected the trust's application for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish replies to notices issued, thereby failing to prove the genuineness of its activities. Consequently, the provisional registrations granted under these sections were cancelled. The Tribunal noted that the trust had submitted grounds of appeal asserting that it was engaged in charitable activities such as creating spiritual awareness, conducting bhandaras, maintaining gaushalas, and running yoga centers. The trust also claimed to maintain regular books of accounts and get them audited, with financials submitted on the income tax portal. It contended that the cancellation was unjust, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted before cancellation. However, during the hearing, the assessee failed to appear and did not produce any evidence to counter the rejection. The Tribunal observed that only two notices had been issued by the ld. CIT (Exemption) and that the assessee had not responded to these notices, leading to the rejection of the applications. Key Evidence and Findings: The primary evidence relied upon by the CIT (Exemption) was the absence of any reply or documentation from the assessee in response to notices dated 06.09.2024 and 23.10.2024. The assessee's submissions in the appeal papers claimed compliance and cooperation but were not substantiated by any documentary proof at the hearing. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal recognized that non-furnishing of requisite information and failure to respond to notices justified the rejection and cancellation under the statutory provisions. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's claim of charitable objectives and maintenance of accounts, as well as the fact that the assessee was not heard before cancellation, raising concerns about adherence to natural justice. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on the order of the CIT (Exemption) and the absence of any response from the assessee to notices as grounds for upholding the cancellation. The assessee argued that the cancellation was unjust, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice principles due to lack of opportunity to be heard and that the trust's activities were bona fide and charitable in nature. Conclusions: Balancing these considerations, the Tribunal adopted a lenient approach. It held that since the assessee was given only two notices and no opportunity for a detailed hearing before cancellation, the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit the required documents and was to be given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The appeals were thus allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remanded for reconsideration. Issue (c): Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Relevant Legal Framework: The principles of natural justice require that no person should be condemned unheard and that an opportunity of hearing must be granted before adverse action is taken. This principle applies in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, including cancellation of registrations under the Income Tax Act. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that no opportunity of hearing was granted before cancellation of provisional registration under sections 12AB and 80G. The CIT (Exemption) had proceeded to cancel the registrations solely on the basis of non-response to notices without providing a personal hearing. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding violation of natural justice. It reasoned that before cancelling the registrations, the assessee should have been given a fair opportunity to explain and submit documents. This deficiency warranted restoration of the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity of hearing. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice was not complied with and directed that the assessee be granted adequate opportunity of hearing in the remand proceedings. Issue (d): Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals Relevant Legal Framework: Delay in filing appeals can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown under the relevant procedural rules. Courts have discretion to condone delay if the reasons are genuine and the delay is not deliberate or inordinate. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted a delay of 36 days in filing both appeals. The Chairman of the Trust filed applications for condonation of delay, citing medical reasons and absence of managing trustees and authorized representatives from the State during the relevant period. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue opposed condonation but left the decision to the discretion of the Tribunal. Conclusions: The Tribunal found merit in the explanation and condoned the delay of 36 days in filing the appeals. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is restored to the file of the ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication by providing adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee is also required to submit the documents as demanded by the ld. CIT(E) with regard to registration of the Trust u/s 12AB of the Act. Thus, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes." "Since we have restored the appeal of the assessee with regard to the registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication, therefore, the outcome of appeal of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act is consequential in nature and is also restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E)." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
