2025 (3) TMI 863 - AT - Income Tax

Trust registration matter restored for fresh decision after provisional cancellation under section 12AA

Sankirtana Movement Trust Versus The CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

Sankirtana Movement Trust Versus The CIT (Exemption), Jaipur - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT (Exemption) was justified.Whether the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT (Exemption) was justified.Whether the delay in filing appeals by the assessee should be condoned.Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to the alleged lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Rejection of Section 12AB RegistrationRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the registration of trusts for tax exemption purposes. The CIT (Exemption) can reject an application if not satisfied with the genuineness of activities or compliance with legal requirements.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the registration application due to an incomplete Form 10AB, non-compliance with the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and doubts about the genuineness of activities.Key evidence and findings: The CIT (Exemption) observed that the assessee failed to provide adequate justification for the regularization of provisional registration.Application of law to facts: The Court found that the provisional registration was rightly canceled as the assessee did not fulfill the necessary conditions.Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued for a lack of opportunity to be heard. The Court acknowledged this but emphasized the need for compliance with the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.Conclusions: The Court decided to restore the matter to the CIT (Exemption) to allow the assessee to provide the necessary documents and complete Form 10AB.2. Rejection of Section 80G ApprovalRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for tax deductions on donations to certain approved institutions. Approval under Section 80G requires prior registration under Section 12AB.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT (Exemption) rejected the application for approval under Section 80G due to the absence of registration under Section 12AB.Key evidence and findings: The CIT (Exemption) noted that without Section 12AB registration, Section 80G approval could not be granted.Application of law to facts: The Court found the rejection justified as the prerequisite registration under Section 12AB was not in place.Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's argument regarding the lack of opportunity was considered but did not alter the requirement for Section 12AB registration.Conclusions: The Court held that the outcome of the Section 80G appeals is contingent on the resolution of the Section 12AB registration issue.3. Condonation of DelayRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considers the condonation of delay based on sufficient cause preventing timely filing.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found no sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals, as the reasons provided by the assessee were deemed inadequate.Key evidence and findings: The assessee cited confusion over legal remedies and recent changes in trust-related laws as reasons for the delay.Application of law to facts: The Court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay but proceeded to hear the appeals on merit to ensure substantial justice.Conclusions: The delay was not condoned, but the appeals were heard on their merits.4. Principles of Natural JusticeRelevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given an opportunity to present their case.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the assessee's claim of not being heard but emphasized the need for compliance with statutory requirements.Key evidence and findings: The assessee claimed inadequate opportunity to present its case before the CIT (Exemption).Application of law to facts: The Court restored the matter to the CIT (Exemption) to provide the assessee an opportunity to present the necessary documentation.Conclusions: The Court directed the CIT (Exemption) to reconsider the applications upon submission of the required documents by the assessee.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with statutory requirements for registration and approval under Sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.It highlighted the importance of providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.The Court restored the matters to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, contingent on the assessee's compliance with the legal requirements.It clarified that the decision to restore the matters should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the dispute.