TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st / institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued through ITBA portal on 26.07.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information / clarification. The Ld. CIT(E), on verification of the details filed by the assessee noticed certain discrepancies for which he issued another notice to the assessee on 25.11.2024 duly communicating the discrepancies. The assessee responded to the same notice and submitted its reply. However, the Ld. CIT(E) noticed that the case of the assessee is covered by clause (iv) of section 2(n) of the Right to Education Act which the assessee has failed to comply in not granting admission to the students from the financially weaker section of the society. Further, in spite of giving sufficient opportunities, the assessee could not satisfy the Ld. CIT(E) regarding the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force which are material for the purpose of achieving its objects. He, therefore, rejected the application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier u/s 12AB of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the trust. 5. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, wrongly concluded that the Appellant had not complied with Rule 17A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, despite the Appellant providing audited accounts for FY 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, as required. 6. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in interpreting the absence of compliance with the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) as a failure to fulfill the conditions under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), even though the Appellant is an unaided school and the RTE Act's financial aid provisions are inapplicable. 7. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in relying on the lease agreement as a ground to question the legal and financial security of the Appellant, despite the absence of any legal requirement under the Act to include specific provisions related to lease extensions or construction cost reimbursements. The Appellant prays that: 1. The rejection order under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and the cancellation of provisional approval under Section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) be set aside. 2. The application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(g) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, despite the Appellant providing audited accounts for FY 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, as required. 6. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in interpreting the absence of compliance with the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) as a failure to fulfill the conditions under Section 80G(5), even though the Appellant is an unaided school and the RTE Act's financial aid provisions are inapplicable. 7. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in relying on the lease agreement as a ground to question the legal and financial security of the Appellant, despite the absence of any legal requirement under the Act to include specific provisions related to lease extensions or construction cost reimbursements. 8. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, incorrectly held that the Appellant was not eligible for approval under Section 80G(5) on the basis that the Appellant did not hold a regular registration under Section 12AB, without appreciating the pending procedural issues and compliance steps undertaken by the Appellant as the rejection order for registration u/s 12AB has not yet issued. The Appellant pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, their non-consideration would cause undue hardship to the appellant and result in a failure of justice. 3. The appellant places reliance on the following judicial pronouncements, which support the admission of additional evidence when it is essential for rendering justice: Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [231 ITR 1 (Bom)] The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that if certain documents are necessary for determining the true state of affairs, the first appellate authority should have admitted them even without a specific request. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)] - The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that an appellate authority does not exceed its jurisdiction by admitting additional evidence if it is necessary for complete and effective adjudication. Dwarka Prasad v. ITO [63 ITD 1 (Patna) (TM)] - It was held that additional evidence should be admitted when it is crucial for rendering substantial justice. 4. Prayer: In view of the above, the appellant respectfully prays that Your Honour may kindly: Allow the admission of the additional evidence listed above under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribun....