2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 15688
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (BANGALORE BENCH)
STUDENTS EDUCATION SOCIETY GADAG GADAG – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) BENGALURU – Respondent
ITA 143/BANG/2025[NA]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.143/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : NA Students Education Society Basavareddi Hospital Edurige Malakoppanamath Building G.K.C. Rani Rasthe CIT (Exemptions)
Vs.
Gadag Bengaluru Karnataka 582 101 PAN NO : AANAS3730M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Prathik P., A.R.
Respondent by : Sri E. Shridhar, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025
O R D E R
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Exemptions) Bangalore dated 13/12/2024 vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1071190088(1) rejecting the application filed for approval u/s
80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Society registered on 27/07/2015 under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960) vide Society Number: GDG-S99-2015-16 (Certificate of Registration of society placed at pg-1 of PB). The assessee society was originally registered u/s 12AA of the Act by way of an Order dated 29/03/2021 passed by the ld. CIT(E) Bangalore granting registration No. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE/12AA/2020-21/A/10793 with salient activities as Education. Thereafter, as submitted by the AR, the assessee had been granted registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act on 08/07/2024. (Copy not submitted before us).
Further, the assessee trust had been granted the provisional approval vide URN – AANAS3730MF20221 dated 02/12/2022 under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G from 02.12.2022 to assessment year 2025-26 in Form No.10AC by the ld. PCIT/CIT. The assessee trust thereafter applied for permanent approval as per clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act in Form No.10AB on 30.06.2024
3.1 The ld. CIT(Exemptions), Bangalore after granting opportunity of being heard rejected the approval u/s 80G of the Act on the following grounds:
(i) As per the Financial statements for the years ending 31.03.2022, 31.03.2023 & 31.03.2024, the assessee society has collected fees but has not received donations or Govt. grants (ii) On perusal of financials submitted it is observed that assessee has not made any substantial expenditure towards the objects of the trust. Thus, assessee has not commenced its activity towards the attainment of the objects of the trust.
(iii) From the financials, it could be observed that no major activities had been conducted by the assessee.
3.2 In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee trust in form 10AB dated 30.06.2024 for approval u/s. 80G of the Act was rejected and accordingly, the approval was cancelled by the ld. CIT(E) vide Order in Form No. 10AD dated 13/12/2024
4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Exemptions), Bangalore dated 13/12/2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.
5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act especially having satisfied with the genuineness of the Trust and also having satisfied with the activity of the trust and granted registration u/s 12AB of the Act. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also submitted that for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act, the ld. CIT(Exemptions) should only be satisfied about the genuineness of the activity of the trust and fulfillment of the conditions laid down in clause (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(E) grossly erred in holding that the assessee has not made any substantial expenditure & thus has not commenced its activities.
6. The ld. D.R. on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the authorities below and submitted that n