Charitable trust registration under section 12AB cannot be denied where objects are public and activities are genuine.

Provisional registration under section 12AB cannot be refused merely because a trust runs facilities such as an Atithigruh or Bhojansala, where the deed and materials show general public benefit and the activities are genuine. The stated objects were read as open to all sections of society, not confined to a particular religious community or caste, and the incidental facilities were not treated as commercial in nature. The jurisdictional objection was also rejected because the competent authority at Ahmedabad was the proper authority for the Gujarat-based trust. The result was that registration was to be considered in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of provisional registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified on the ground that the trust's objects were for the benefit of a particular religious community or caste and that its activities were not genuine. (ii) Whether the order was vitiated for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of provisional registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified on the ground that the trust's objects were for the benefit of a particular religious community or caste and that its activities were not genuine.

Analysis: The application and supporting documents showed that the trust deed and activities were aimed at general public benefit. The stated objects were read as open to all sections of society and not confined to any caste or religious community. The activities of running an Atithigruh and Bhojansala were treated as incidental to charitable objects and not as commercial undertakings. The materials placed before the authority were found sufficient to establish the genuineness of activities and the charitable character of the trust.

Conclusion: The rejection of registration was not sustainable and the assessee was entitled to registration in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether the order was vitiated for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The trust was situated in Gujarat and the jurisdictional authority at Ahmedabad was the competent authority to deal with the application. The objection to jurisdiction was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive issue relating to registration, while the jurisdictional challenge was rejected, and the matter stood allowed for statistical purposes with a direction to consider registration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration under section 12AB cannot be denied where the trust's objects are for general public benefit and the activities are found genuine, and incidental facilities do not become commercial merely by their nomenclature or use.

---