The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Benches, “B” Jaipur, has recently while deciding upon an appeal filed before it by the Assessee, held that registration sought u/s 12AA(1)(a) of the Act cannot to be denied for the want of submission of original documents and that self – certified copy or instruments should be considered sufficient for the same.
The aforesaid observation was made by the Tribunal when an appeal was filed before it by the assessee, as directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), CIT(E), Jaipur, dated 25.09.2020 for the Assessment year 2020-21.
The grounds of the assessee’s appeal being that the CIT(E), Jaipur has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in denying registration sought u/s 12AA(1)(a) of the Act, on the ground that the appellant failed to submit original documents establishing the appellant trust, it was prayed by the assessee that the impugned order be quashed for being contrary to the prevalent law and the rules made thereunder, and that the CIT(E) Jaipur be directed to grant it the registration.
Hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the tribunal commented:
“We observe that the ld. CIT(E) is factually incorrect and unjustifiable where the ld. CIT(E) has failed to observe that the activities carried out by the trust is genuine in nature. We observe that the assessee carried out charitable activities in accordance with law, with main objects and amended objects of the trust deed.”
“Taking into consideration the present facts of the case and all the relevant documents which are also available on record produced before the ld. CIT(E) and before us, the assessee deserves registration u/s 12AA.”, the Bench added.
Thus, allowing the assessee’s appeal, the Tribunal concluded:
“We are of the considered view that as per amended Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules which are applicable in the case of the assessee, the assessee was not required to fulfil any original copy of the documents rather self-certified copy/instrument was sufficient for the purpose of verification by the ld. CIT(E), therefore, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee is allowed.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates