High Court Of Rajasthan
Sanatan Dharm Mahaveer Dal vs. CIT
Rajesh Balia, J.
S.B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 4571 of 1998
22nd March, 2001
R. Mehta, for the Petitioner : S. Bhandawat, for the Respondent
RAJESH BALIA, J. :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner challenges the order annexure 3, dt. 15th Sept., 1997, by which the application for registering the trust in question under s. 12A of the IT Act, 1961, was accepted w.e.f. 2nd April,1997.
3. The order is on a printed form which records alternative findings about the acceptance of sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for not making an application for registration within the time allowed under s. 12A or no sufficient cause is made out. Even one of the alternative grounds printed in the form has not been scored out. The petitioner contends that this notice has been issued without affording an opportunity of hearing. To substantiate his case for having been prevented by sufficient cause from not making an application earlier, he further contends that the order itself shows that it has been made in a mechanical manner without application of mind so much so that none of the alternative findings printed on the form having not been scored out. In fact, if the registration is accepted by condoning the delay for which sufficient cause is accepted then the petitioner is entitled to exemption with effect from the date of its creation. In the alternative, the form only concerns about the rejection of the application for condonation of delay. The review application against this order has also been rejected. That application has also been rejected without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner states that on both occasions before the making of the order in printed form on 15th Sept., 1997, and making the order on 23rd Sept., 1998, after the petitioner submitted the rectification/review application, a report was called from the concerned officers which was in favour of the petitioner. The facts about the making of an order in the printed form and not recording a finding by application of mind to the relevant material which were before the CIT and that no opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee before the impugned orders were made, is not disputed.
4. In these circumstances, the conclusion is irresistible that the orders annexure 3 and annexure 6, dt. 15th Sept., 1997, and 23rd Sept., 1998, having been made in breach of the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained.
5. The petition is accordingly allowed. Annexure 3, dt. 15th Sept., 1997, and annexure 6, dt. 23rd Sept., 1998, to the extent it rejects the application of the assessee for considering the cause shown by it for not making an application for registration under s. 12A earlier to 2nd April, 1997, is set aside. However, it will not affect the registration of the trust as a charitable trust with effect from the date the application was made as it was otherwise found to be a charitable trust entitled to be registered under s. 12A. The CIT shall decide the application of the assessee for considering the case of the petitioner in terms of s. 12A(1) in accordance with law for the purpose of according registration with effect from the date of creation of such trust or any other date in accordance with law.
[Citation : 252 ITR 46]