RADHEYSHYAM MANDIR TRUST Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 12AA

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Section 12AA registration: rejection for not furnishing originals where amended Rule 17A permits prescribed/self-certified documentation.
• What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
• How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

Material facts and procedural background

Charitable trust—Registration under s. 12AA—Filing of original or self-certified copies of documents, balance sheets, etc.—CIT (Exemption) rejected the assessee's application seeking registration on the ground that instrument establishing the trust and other evidences were not filed in original—Not justified—Application seeking registration was filed on 6th Feb., 2020—Hence, the amended r. 17A was applicable for registration of charitable trust—As per amended r. 17A, it was not required to file any original copy of the documents—Self-certified copy/instrument was sufficient for the purpose of verification by the CIT (Exemption)—Assessee submitted self-attested copies of the main objects and amended objects along with documents obtained from Devstan Vibhag—Whenever the CIT (Exemption) raised queries, all of them were duly replied—Assessee also submitted audited balance sheets and income and expenditure accounts for asst. yrs. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, temple photographs, and certified copy of the trust deed before the CIT (Exemption) along with application in Form No. 10A—Assessee has carried out charitable activities in accordance with the main objects and amended objects of…

As per amended r. 17A, it was not required to file any original copy of the documents; self-certified copy/instrument was sufficient for the purpose of verification by the CIT (Exemption); since the assessee has carried out charitable activities in accordance with the main objects and amended objects of the trust deed, it is entitled for registration under s. 12AA.

Mahendra Gargieya, for the Assessee : Sanjay Dhariwal, for the Revenue

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) [hereinafter referred to as learned 'CIT (Exemption)'], Jaipur, dt. 25th Sept., 2020 for the asst. yr. 2020-21.

2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 15 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee filed an application dt. 1st Jan., 2021 for condonation of delay with following prayers :

Appellant / assessee submissions

2. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the due to widespread of pandemic Covid-19, there was a delay in signing and submission of appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The trustee being old aged person restricted their movement to safeguard themselves. This has contributed minor delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal.

5.1 It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 62 CTR (SC) 23 : (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable :

2. It is further submitted that self-attested copies of the main objects and amended objects were submitted along with the application itself. Moreover, certified copies of both the documents obtained from Devstan Vibhag, Rajasthan were also duly produced before the CIT (Exemption) as soon as it was received on 22nd Sept., 2020. However, the same have been completely ignored and therefore the allegation levelled by the learned CIT (Exemption) on this aspect is factually wrong. Even assuming copies certified from Devstan Vibhag were not filed, then too, this being not a condition precedent, could not dissented the trust from registration as stated above.

8. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that during the course of proceedings, the learned CIT (Exemption) has observed in his order that part reply submitted by the trust on 28th Aug., 2020 and the balance documents which were to be submitted on 11th Sept., 2020 and final opportunity was given by the learned CIT (Exemption) and after having been given sufficient time and opportunity and submitted that the matter should be restored back to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption) and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

Revenue / respondent submissions

8. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that during the course of proceedings, the learned CIT (Exemption) has observed in his order that part reply submitted by the trust on 28th Aug., 2020 and the balance documents which were to be submitted on 11th Sept., 2020 and final opportunity was given by the learned CIT (Exemption) and after having been given sufficient time and opportunity and submitted that the matter should be restored back to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption) and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The prayer as mentioned above by the assessee for condonation of delay of 15 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus, the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned.

income and expenditure account and the balance sheet of the financial year 2010-11 were also furnished. The learned CIT in order to verify the claim of the assessee and also the activities of the assessee entertained the submissions of the assessee. The learned CIT denied registration to the assessee on the ground that as per r. 17A(a) of the IT Rules, 1962 the assessee was to submit the original instrument of its establishment together with the copy thereof and since the assessee has submitted only the photocopy/certified copy of the instrument therefore, the application was not complete and thus the application itself is not worth consideration for registration under s. 12AA of the Act. We find that the learned CIT has gone into too much technicalities more specifically when certified copy of the original instrument was duly filed by the assessee. If this was the sole criteria, then nothing prevented the learned CIT to direct the assessee to file the original instrument. The second ground on which the assessee was denied registration, was that the assessee is not doing charitable activity. On perusal of record and after hearing the rival submissions we are satisfied that the…

9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The grounds Nos. 1 and 2 are inter-connected. We observed that the assessee is a charitable society, established long back and engaged in promoting nationality, education, and personality development of the students without any discrimination of caste, creed and sex. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an online application on 6th Feb., 2020 in Form No. 10A for seeking registration under s. 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. Further, the assessee-society was issued noticed dt. 14th July, 2020 requesting to submit certain documents and to produce original RC/MOA for verification. The learned CIT (Exemption) has supposed in its order that as per r. 17A r/w s. 12AA(1)(b) of the Act original instrument establishing the trust and other evidences were not filed in original. Further, the learned CIT (Exemption) empowered to call for such document and information to satisfy himself of the genuineness of the activities or to make necessary enquiries. Further, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee…

Operative decision and relief

8. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that during the course of proceedings, the learned CIT (Exemption) has observed in his order that part reply submitted by the trust on 28th Aug., 2020 and the balance documents which were to be submitted on 11th Sept., 2020 and final opportunity was given by the learned CIT (Exemption) and after having been given sufficient time and opportunity and submitted that the matter should be restored back to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption) and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Ratio and legal principle

• The packaged judgment addresses Section 12AA registration: rejection for not furnishing originals where amended Rule 17A permits prescribed/self-certified documentation. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
• Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with section 12aa registration: rejection for not furnishing originals where amended rule 17a permits prescribed/self-certified documentation. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

• Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
• Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
• Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Does this case match your facts?

Section / provision impact

• 12AA - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

• Heart Foundation of India v. CIT - ITAT Mumbai
• Ramesh Kumar Patodia Vs Citibank N.A. - Court / Tribunal to be verified
• ACIT vs. ARMEE INFOTECH - Court / Tribunal to be verified

Different outcome / possible distinction

• Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , Kanpur Vs AR Polymers Pvt ltd - Quashed / set aside
• Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. & Others - Allowed

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY