JITO Malegaon Chapter Foundation Vs Exemption Circle (ITAT Pune)
Section 12AB Registration: Job Fairs, Yoga Events and Marathons Cannot Be Dismissed as Non-Charitable Without Proper Examination
Issue involved
Whether regular registration under section 12AB could be refused by treating job fairs, Yoga Day celebrations and a marathon as non-charitable activities, coupled with objections concerning supporting documents and bills, without identifying specific violations and properly examining the charitable character of the objects and activities.
Background of the case
The assessee was a charitable foundation registered under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. Its stated objects included promoting social welfare, charitable activities, skill development, youth empowerment and public welfare without discrimination based on caste, creed or religion.
The foundation obtained provisional registration under section 12AB on 12 September 2023. Subsequently, it filed Form 10AB on 20 June 2025, seeking regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) read with section 12AB.
To examine the genuineness of its activities, the CIT(Exemption), Pune, issued a notice through the ITBA portal on 18 August 2025. The foundation furnished the details sought.
A further notice dated 9 October 2025 pointed out discrepancies in the information submitted. The assessee responded on 25 November 2025.
However, by order dated 10 December 2025, the CIT(E) rejected the application for regular registration.
Reasons for rejection
The CIT(E) observed that the activities described by the foundation mainly consisted of seminars relating to job fairs, Yoga Day celebrations and conducting a marathon.
According to the authority, the assessee had not furnished adequate supporting evidence, including photographs, related bills and vouchers, and details of beneficiaries. Consequently, the authenticity of the activities was considered questionable.
The CIT(E) further observed that the bills and invoices principally related to administrative and establishment expenditure. The financial statements reflected miscellaneous expenditure without separately demonstrating expenditure on charitable activities.
Objections were also raised because several bills were handwritten and did not contain GST numbers or stamps.
On this basis, the CIT(E) concluded that the foundation had failed to establish the authenticity and genuineness of its charitable activities and referred to non-compliance with section 12AB(1)(b)(i) and Rule 17A(2).
The assessee challenged the rejection before the Tribunal.
Tribunal’s observations on registration-stage scrutiny
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had concluded that no charitable activities were carried out without pinpointing specific violations or defects warranting that conclusion.
It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ananda Social and Educational Trust v. CIT, (2020) 426 ITR 340, concerning the scope of examination at the registration stage.
As explained by the Tribunal, the expression “activities” includes proposed activities. The Commissioner must examine whether the objects are genuinely charitable and whether the proposed activities are genuine and consistent with those objects.
The Tribunal emphasised that registration proceedings are not an assessment of what the institution has actually accomplished.
It considered the examination of utilisation of expenditure, in the manner undertaken by the CIT(E), premature at that stage and described the approach as hypertechnical.
Charitable character of the activities
The Tribunal separately examined the activities identified in the rejection order.
It observed that conducting seminars relating to job fairs, celebrating Yoga Day and organising a marathon could fall within advancement of an object of general public utility, provided they did not involve activities in the nature of trade or commerce.
The Tribunal reproduced section 2(15), including its proviso concerning commercial activities and the specified conditions governing such receipts.
It concluded that an activity advancing general public utility, which was not in the nature of trade, commerce or business, would be charitable. Accordingly, the application required reconsideration rather than rejection on the reasoning adopted.
Decision
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)’s order and restored the application for fresh adjudication in accordance with the facts and law.
The CIT(E) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The assessee was correspondingly directed to respond to notices and produce documentary evidence and submissions supporting its contentions, without seeking adjournments unless required.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Author’s comments
The decision highlights the need to distinguish between the charitable nature of an activity and the adequacy of evidence proving that it occurred. Job fairs, yoga programmes and public events cannot be rejected as non-charitable merely because they do not resemble conventional distribution of relief.
At the same time, the Tribunal did not dispense with documentary substantiation. Its direction expressly requires the foundation to produce supporting evidence in the restored proceedings. Objections to documentation were not treated as a reason to grant registration automatically.
Another useful distinction concerns expenditure classification. Describing expenditure as “miscellaneous” does not, by itself, resolve whether the underlying activity advances charitable objects; its actual nature requires examination.
Finally, registration was not granted outright. The ruling secures reconsideration under the proper legal approach, while leaving the CIT(E) to examine the application afresh. The observations on public utility activities also remain subject to the commercial-activity provisions discussed in the order.
Cases Discussed:
1. Ananda Social and Educational Trust Vs CIT, (2020) 426 ITR 340 (SC) — Supreme Court. Relied upon for the principle that examination of activities at the registration stage includes proposed activities and that registration proceedings are not an assessment of the institution’s actual accomplishments. The Tribunal applied this principle while finding the CIT(E)’s approach premature and hypertechnical.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal is filed by the Assesseeagainst the order of Ld. CIT(E) PUNE dated 10th December, 2025 rejecting application filed by the assessee for grant of regular application u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax, 1961.
2 Facts in brief are that the assessee is a charitable foundation registered u/s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. It was established with the primary object of promoting social welfare, charitable activities, skill development, youth empowerment, and public welfare among all sections of society, without any discrimination as to caste, creed or religion.Provisional registration u/s. 12AB was granted to the assessee on 12.09.2023. Pursuant to the same, assessee has applied for regular/final registration in Form No. 10AB on 20.06.2025 under clause (iii) of Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, seeking grant of final registration under Section 12AB.In order to verify the genuineness of the activities, ld.CIT(Exemption) issued notice through ITBA portal on 18.08.2025 to which the assessee has filed the requisite details. Thereafter, ld.CIT(Exemption) issued another notice dated 09.10.2025 pointing out certain discrepancies in the information/details so filed. To this notice also, asssesee has furnished its response on 25.11.2025. However, ld.CIT(Exemption) rejected the application by observing as under :
“4. The assessee furnished response on 25/11/2025. The assessee was requested to furnish note on activities giving details of activities actually carried out with supporting documents for claimed activities. From the submissions it is seen that the assessee trust has not carried out any charitable activities. The activities carried out are mainly seminars on job fairs and celebration of yoga day and conducting a marathon. However, supporting evidences such as photographs of these activities, related bills and vouchers of charitable activities, details of beneficiaries are not submitted by the assessee trust. As such the authenticity of the said activities remained questionable. The bills invoices furnished are mainly related to administrative and establishment (Miscellaneous expenses). It is also seen from the financial statements that the trust has mad expenses on miscellaneous activities and has not made any expenses on charitable activities. Also, the bills furnished are mainly hand written bills. It is also seen that paper bills furnished are not having GST No. even thought no any stamped on these bills. As such the authenticity and genuineness of the said bills remained questionable. Thus, the assessee trust has failed to prove the authenticity and genuineness of its charitable activities.
7. Considering the above facts discussed in the show notice and discrepancies noticed and also that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the provisions of Rule 17A(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 in spite giving sufficient opportunities, the undersigned is not satisfied about the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance of requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the assessee as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects.”
3. Against the said rejection, the assessee has approached this Tribunal assailing the impugned order.
4. We have heard both the sides and perused the record. We have also carefully gone through the decisions relied on by ld Counsel for the assessee We have gone through the finding given by ld.CIT(Exemption). We find ld.CIT(Exemption) without pinpointing any specific violations/defects has recorded a finding that assessee has not carried out any charitable activities. In the case of Ananda Social and Educational Trust Vs CIT, (2020) 426 ITR 340 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that at the registration stage the expression “activities” includes proposed activities. The Commissioner has to examine whether the objects are genuinely charitable and whether proposed activities are genuine and consistent with those objects; registration proceedings are not an assessment of what the trust has actually accomplished. We find ld.CIT(Exemption) has travelled beyond his jurisdiction at the time of granting as regards the utilization of expenditure, being premature at this stage. We find ld.CIT(Exemption) has adopted hyper technical approach.
5. Be that as it may, it is the allegation of ld. CIT(Exemption) that supporting evidences such as photographs, related bills & vouchers & details of beneficiaries of activities such as Job fairs, Yoga Day celebration, conducting a marathon were not submitted by the assessee & the bills which were submitted does not contains GST numbers etc. And in the financial statements the trust has made expenses on Miscellaneous activities & has not made any expenses on charitable activities.In this regard we find that the activities of conducting seminars on Job fairs, Yoga Day celebration, conducting a marathon are all covered in GPU i.e General Public utility if it does not involve any activity in the nature of trade & commerce. In this regard proviso to section 2(15) is relevant which is reproduced herewith “
“(15) “charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility:
Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity, unless
(1) such activity is undertaken in the course of actual carrying out of such advancement of any other object of general public utility; and
(ii) the aggregate receipts from such activity or activities during the previous year, do not exceed twenty per cent of the total receipts, of the trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;”
6. From a perusal of above provision, it becomes clear that any activity of General Public Utility which is not in the nature of trade or commerce or business will be charitable. Accordingly, wefind merit in the argument of ld. Counsel for the assessee that the mater needs reconsideration before ld.CIT(Exemption) again.
7. Considering the totality of facts of the case & in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by ld.CIT(Exemption) & restore the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the application for registration afresh as per fact &law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assess. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by ld.CIT(Exemption) in this regard & to produce documents evidences & submissions in support of its contentions without taking any adjournment, unless otherwise required. Impugned order is set aside and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th October, 2026.
