IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4616/DEL/2024 [A.Y. ] ITA No. 4617/DEL/2024 [A.Y. ]

Maa Sidheshwari Charitable Trust Vs. The C.I.T(E)

Shri Kanta Prasad Singh Delhi R/o Village and Post Village Babli City, Near Astha Hospital New Delhi PAN : AAITM 5890 N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Naveen Kumar, Adv Shri Gaurav Gupta, CA Department By : Shri Rishipal Bedi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 06.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:-

Both the above captioned separate appeals by the assessee are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(E), Delhi dated 22.08.2024 rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A of the Income tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act.

2. Since both the captioned appeals were heard together and pertain to same assessee, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust incorporated on 25.09.2023. The assessee filed an application in form No.10AB on 26.09.2023 seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act.

5. In order to examine and verify the genuineness of the objects of the trust or institution, in the light of the provisions of section 12AA of the Act, the CIT(Exemption) issued notices to which the assessee filed a reply and sought further time for more submissions. The CIT (Exemption) considered the submissions filed and held that the assessee does not conclusively prove the genuineness of the activities and rejected the registration.

6. Now the assessee is in appeal before us.

7. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) was not right in rejecting the application of the assessee for registration u/s 12A of the Act. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the appeal was rejected by CIT(E) vide Form No 10AD because according to him the trust could not conclusively prove genuineness of activities.

8. The ld AR further submitted that during hearing the assessee filed all necessary documents as required by the ld CIT(E) and there was enough material on record to prove the genuineness of the society and activities carried by it. In Form No 10AD the Id CIT(E) admitted that material filed by the society was showing charitable activities but rejected application by observing that the society could not conclusively prove the genuineness of its activities. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the reason given by the ld. CIT(E) was vague.

9. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(E).

10. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the order of the CIT (Exemption). The assessee has furnished several documents and evidences which were furnished before the ld. CIT(E) before us to establish the genuineness of the activities of the trust. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(E) has not given sufficient time to assessee to present its case.

10. In view of the above factual position, we are of the considered view that the CIT(E) ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the issue of registration u/s 12A of the Act to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to rehear and consider all the documents submitted along with the application after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No. 4616/DEL/2024

11. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(E) was not justified in not granting approval u/s 80G o