IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2172 & 2173/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2024-25 Shri Siwanchi Oswal Jain Bhavan Trust, Vs. The Commissioner of Income No.204, Paxal Tower, 2^nd Floor, Tax (Exemptions), No.13, K.R Road, Bengaluru.

Bangalore-560 002.

PAN – AVHTS 944C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.A Revenue by : Shri Aseem Sharma, CIT (DR)

Date of hearing : 09.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025

O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(E), Bangalore, both dated 29/10/2024 rejecting the applications for registration under section 12AB and 80G of the Act. First, we take up ITA No. 2172/Bang/2024 as the lead case.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds appeal:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in passing the impugned order, rejecting the application for registration filed by the appellant, in the manner passed. The impugned order is bad in law, void ab initio and is liable to be quashed.

2. In any case, and without prejudice the impugned order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed.

3. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) is not based on legal provisions but based on erroneous conclusions and is liable to be cancelled.

4.1 In any case, and without further prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in holding that the appellant has not satisfied the conditions laid under section 12AB(l) of the Act. Such a conclusion is without basis, adhoc and is therefore not to be accepted and acted upon.

4.2 In particular the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in concluding that the appellant has not carried on any charitable activities. Infact, the appellant had commenced charitable activities as per objectives in the trust deed.

4.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) also erred in holding that the differences in provisional statement and audited statement have not been explained at all.

Infact, no such opportunity was given to the appellant to explain the provisional and audited statements.

4.4 The grounds of rejection for application of registration being not present, the conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) that appellant is not entitled for registration is bad in law and on fact and liable to be rejected.

5.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in ignoring:

a) That the objectives of the appellant are charitable in nature.

b) That the activities of the appellant are genuine.

c) That the appellant complied with requirements of any other law in so far as are material to achieving the objects of appellant.

5.2 Therefore, the appellant having complied with all the legal conditions laid down under section 12AB(l) of the Act is entitled to registration under the Act and same is to be granted to the appellant.

6. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order be quashed or at least it be held that the appellant is entitled for registration u/s. 12AB(l) of the Act.”

3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(E) erred in canceling the application of registration applied under section 12AB(1)

of the Act.

4. Brief facts are that the assessee is public charitable trust established vide trust deed dated 1^st September 2024 with the stated object to build, restore, renovate, and maintain places of worship, historical monuments, pilgrimage sites, and public places of faith and belief. It also intends to construct and run community service facilities such as marriage halls, prayer halls, libraries, reading rooms, and dharamshalas for the benefit of the general public. Additionally, the trust will organize worship acti