2025 (6) TMI 309 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of registration u/s 12AB - CIT(E) has cancelled the provisional registration of the assessee for the reason that the assessee trust had failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration - prayer of the ld.AR of the assessee was that the assessee may be provided one more chance to adduce the documents before the ld. CIT(E) to resolve the issue in question and the assessee trust has been granted the Registration by the Devsthan Vibhag Ajmer under RPT Act 1959 HELD THAT - We restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with the direction that as and when the assessee trust produces the copy of the Registration under RPT Act 1959 and other documents required by him then the application of the assessee trust for registration u/s 12AB of the Act be decided afresh in accordance with law. The assessee trust is also directed to produce the complete Form 10AB and produce the documents relating to the genuineness of the activities etc. before the ld CIT(E) 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. Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in these appeals are:

(a) Whether the cancellation of the provisional registration granted under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee trust was justified and in accordance with law, particularly considering the principles of natural justice.

(b) Whether the cancellation of provisional registration under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was valid, specifically addressing whether the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard before such cancellation.

(c) Whether the assessee trust qualifies as a charitable trust engaged in activities of social welfare and general public utility, and whether it has complied with the procedural and substantive requirements under the Income Tax Act for registration and exemption purposes.

(d) Whether the assessee's withdrawal of applications for registration and exemption, due to inability to furnish requisite documents for unavoidable reasons, was properly treated as rejection and cancellation by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) without considering the principle of natural justice.

(e) Whether the assessee is entitled to a fresh opportunity to present its case and have its applications for registration under sections 12AB and 80G adjudicated afresh.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (d): Validity of Cancellation of Provisional Registration under Section 12AB and 80G

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act governs the registration of charitable trusts and institutions, which is a prerequisite for claiming exemption under Chapter III of the Act. Similarly, section 80G provides for approval of donations made to charitable trusts for deduction purposes. Both provisions require the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) to be satisfied about the genuineness and compliance of the trust before granting or continuing registration or approval. The law mandates adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard before adverse orders such as cancellation are passed.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Exemption) rejected the assessee's applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on the ground that the assessee had requested to withdraw the applications due to inability to furnish requisite documents, citing personal emergencies. The Commissioner treated the withdrawal as rejection and cancelled the provisional registration and approval accordingly. The Tribunal observed that no opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee before cancellation, which amounts to a violation of the principle of natural justice.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee submitted that it was engaged in bona fide charitable activities including social welfare and care of street animals and birds, maintained regular books of accounts duly audited, and utilized all receipts for charitable purposes without any profit motive. The assessee also produced a registration certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (Devasthan Vibhag, Ajmer), audited financial statements, bank statements, donation receipts, photographs of charitable activities, and other supporting documents. The Tribunal took note of these submissions and documents filed before it.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's action of cancelling provisional registration and approval without affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain or submit documents is not in consonance with the legal requirement of natural justice. The withdrawal of application due to unavoidable circumstances should not have been treated as rejection without hearing. The assessee's submissions and documentary evidence indicate its bona fide nature and compliance efforts.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue relied on the orders of the Commissioner (Exemption) and contended that the cancellation was justified as the assessee failed to regularize the provisional registration by submitting requisite documents. The Tribunal, however, emphasized the procedural lapse of non-providing an opportunity of hearing and the assessee's willingness to cooperate and submit documents.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the cancellation of provisional registration and approval was improper and directed restoration of the matter to the file of the Commissioner (Exemption) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a proper opportunity to submit documents and be heard.

Issue (b) and (c): Qualification of the Trust as a Charitable Entity and Compliance with Procedural Requirements

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Act requires that to qualify for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G, the trust must be established for charitable purposes as defined under section 2(15) and must apply its income or receipts solely for such purposes. The trust must maintain proper books of accounts, get them audited, and furnish annual returns and other prescribed documents, including Form 10AB for registration.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee trust was established with the objective of social welfare, helping the needy and underprivileged, and care of street animals and birds, providing all charitable services free of cost without discrimination. The trust maintained regular audited accounts and uploaded financials on the income tax portal. The assessee also obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which is a relevant statutory recognition. The Tribunal found these facts supportive of the trust's bona fide charitable nature.

Key evidence and findings: The trust deed, audited financial statements showing excess of expenses over income (deficit), bank statements, donation receipts, and photographs of charitable activities were submitted. The trust received donations online through Form 10BE. The trust's expenditure was solely for charitable objectives, with no profit motive. The registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act further corroborated the trust's legitimacy.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the assessee met the substantive requirements of a charitable trust and complied with procedural formalities to the extent possible. The deficiency in submission of documents was due to unavoidable reasons and was being rectified. The trust's activities and financials demonstrated its genuine charitable purpose.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on non-submission of documents and failure to regularize registration was countered by the assessee's explanation and documentary proof of bona fide activities and compliance. The Tribunal gave weight to the principle that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights where the trust is genuine.

Conclusions: The Tribunal recognized the trust's qualification as a charitable entity and directed that the Commissioner (Exemption) should consider the application afresh on merits after proper opportunity to the assessee.

Issue (e): Entitlement to Fresh Opportunity and Quashing of Orders

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of natural justice requires that before adverse orders such as cancellation of registration or approval are passed, the affected party should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Ex-parte orders without such opportunity are liable to be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not heard before cancellation of provisional registration and approval, which is a fundamental procedural defect. The assessee's request for restoration of appeals and fresh opportunity to contest the case was found justified.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's submissions before the Tribunal, including the certificate of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, audited financials, and other documents, demonstrated its bona fide status and willingness to comply with requirements.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that procedural fairness is essential and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to submit documents and explain before final adverse orders are passed.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on the Commissioner's orders was outweighed by the procedural lapse and the assessee's bona fide efforts.

Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored the matters to the file of the Commissioner (Exemption) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, expressly clarifying that this restoration does not reflect any opinion on the merits.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The cancellation of provisional registration was not correct. The cancellation of provisional registration is not just and fair as per law, as no opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee before cancellation of provisional registration, this is a clear violation of principle of natural justice."

"The applicant's provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.06.2022 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also lapsed and cancelled." (Order of CIT(E))

"The applicant provisional approval under clause (iv) of first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.08.2022 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional approval, thus with this order provisional approval is also lapsed and cancelled." (Order of CIT(E))

"...the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with the direction that as and when the assessee trust produces the copy of the Registration under RPT Act, 1959 and other documents required by him then the application of the assessee trust for registration u/s 12AB of the Act be decided afresh in accordance with law. The assessee trust is also directed to produce the complete Form 10AB and produce the documents relating to the genuineness of the activities etc. before the ld CIT(E)."

"Our decision to restore the matter back (supra) to the file of the ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law."