Visaji Saamnath Deshpande Public Trust Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Pune)
Pune ITAT Upholds Rejection of Section 12A Registration and Cancellation of Provisional 12AB Registration—Trust’s Failure to Respond to CIT(E)’s Notices Proves Fatal
The Pune ITAT upheld the CIT(E)’s order rejecting the trust’s application for regular registration under Section 12A and simultaneously cancelling its existing provisional registration under Section 12AB, since the trust failed to respond to notices and did not place any material even before the Tribunal to justify interference with the CIT(E)’s findings.
The assessee had filed Form 10AB on 20.09.2023 seeking registration under Section 12A(1)(ac). For examining the genuineness of the trust’s activities and compliance with other laws material to achieving its objects, the CIT(E) issued notices seeking information and clarification. After examining the material initially submitted, certain discrepancies were noticed and a specific show-cause notice was issued asking why the application should not be rejected and why the provisional registration should not be cancelled.
Despite the specific show-cause notice, the trust did not furnish any explanation or avail the opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) therefore concluded that he was unable to arrive at a satisfactory finding regarding the genuineness of the activities or compliance with applicable laws. Consequently, the application for registration was rejected and the provisional registration originally granted on 24.09.2021 was cancelled.
The non-compliance continued even before the ITAT. No one appeared on behalf of the trust on the date of hearing, no adjournment application was filed, and the order sheet showed that there had been no appearance on earlier occasions either. The Tribunal therefore proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of the material available on record.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(E) had rejected registration because of the assessee’s failure to comply with the notices. Since nothing whatsoever was brought before the Tribunal to enable it to take a view contrary to that of the CIT(E), the Tribunal found no reason to interfere and upheld the rejection of registration as well as cancellation of provisional registration. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Interestingly, there was a substantial 644-day delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, explained on the ground that the CIT(E)’s order had not been received on the assessee’s email. The Tribunal nevertheless adopted a liberal, justice-oriented approach and condoned the entire 644-day delay, relying upon the Supreme Court decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. ITO.
Cases Discussed:
- Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO (Supreme Court),Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024 order dated 31.01.2025
- Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Supreme Court),2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339
- Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (Supreme Court),167 ITR 471 (SC)
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.03.2024 of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), Pune rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
