9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB on 27.06.2024 for registration of the trust under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust / institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued through ITBA portal on 26.07.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information / clarification. The Ld. CIT(E), on verification of the details filed by the assessee noticed certain discrepancies for which he issued another notice to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awing the inference that trust is carrying out its activities with profit motive and has a commercial element in its activities and also not for a charitable purpose. b) By holding that period of lease of the land for 30 years and absence of certain clauses such as further renewal, reimbursement of cost if lease is not renewed are important without pointing out how it is going to affect on the educational activities carried out by the appellant trust. c) Not providing sufficient opportunity before drawing adverse inference against the appellant trust while rejecting application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and hence, it is clear violation of principles of natural justice. 2. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are inapplicable. 7. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in relying on the lease agreement as a ground to question the legal and financial security of the Appellant, despite the absence of any legal requirement under the Act to include specific provisions related to lease extensions or construction cost reimbursements. The Appellant prays that: 1. The rejection order under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and the cancellation of provisional approval under Section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) be set aside. 2. The application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) be allowed in the interest of justice. 3. Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be granted. ITA No.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t's activities were not genuine and were driven by a profit motive, without providing sufficient evidence or adequately considering the submissions and documents furnished by the Appellant. 4. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, failed to consider that the surplus generated by the trust was duly applied for the charitable purposes of the trust and for the creation of funds such as the School Building Fund, Education & Research Fund, and Sports Equipment Utility Fund, which are consistent with the objectives of the trust. 5. That the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, wrongly concluded that the Appellant had not complied with Rule 17A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, despite the Appellant providing audited accounts for FY 2018-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act which was remitted back by the Tribunal to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). In the meantime, on the basis of CBDT Circular, the assessee filed another appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that since the order of the Tribunal setting aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) is still pending before him, therefore, this matter may also be restored to his file. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed certain additional evidences and filed an application for admission of the same under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 which read as under: "1. Details of Additional Evidence Bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if certain documents are necessary for determining the true state of affairs, the first appellate authority should have admitted them even without a specific request. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)] - The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that an appellate authority does not exceed its jurisdiction by admitting additional evidence if it is necessary for complete and effective adjudication. Dwarka Prasad v. ITO [63 ITD 1 (Patna) (TM)] - It was held that additional evidence should be admitted when it is crucial for rendering substantial justice. 4. Prayer: In view of the above, the appellant respectfully prays that Your Honour may kindly: Allow the admission of the additional evidence listed above under Rule 29 of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
