JALORE VIKAS SAMITI,JALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 593/JODH/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 August 2026AY 2025-2637 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders of the CIT(E) were not to be treated as final rejections but rather as directions for further proceedings. The Tribunal categorized the appeals based on the nature of deficiencies and provided specific directions for each category. For instance, where registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act was pending, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to verify the certificate upon issuance and proceed with the section 12AB application without requiring the assessee to restart the entire process. For issues concerning the genuineness of activities, the Tribunal directed a fresh examination based on primary material, emphasizing that previous failure to establish genuineness would not automatically constitute a positive finding of non-genuineness. Procedural defects were to be rectified, and applications adjudicated on merits. Rejection of section 80G approval, often consequential to the absence of section 12AB registration, was to be considered after or alongside the determination of section 12AB proceedings. The Tribunal stressed that the restored proceedings should not be a wholesale de novo enquiry but should correspond to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order. The ultimate eligibility of the assessees was left open for determination by the prescribed authority.

What were the facts?

This judgment consolidates multiple appeals filed by various assessees, primarily trusts and societies seeking registration or approval under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals challenge orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)). The common thread across these appeals is the rejection or non-grant of registration/approval due to various deficiencies, including pending applications for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, issues with the genuineness of activities, procedural defects in application forms, and non-compliance with notices. The assessment years involved vary, with some appeals not specifying an assessment year.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions: 1. Whether the rejection or non-grant of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G by the CIT(E) was justified, considering the reasons cited in the impugned orders. The Assessee contended that their applications for registration/approval should be considered favorably, often highlighting that pending applications under state laws or procedural defects were curable. They argued for a fresh opportunity to present their case or for the Tribunal to direct the CIT(E) to reconsider their applications based on subsequent compliance or rectification. The Revenue, represented by the CIT(DR), likely argued for upholding the orders of the CIT(E), emphasizing the deficiencies found in the assessees' applications and their failure to meet the statutory requirements for registration or approval. Specific arguments for the Revenue are not detailed in the provided text, but their stance would be to defend the CIT(E)'s decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (5 matters)

ITA No. 471/JODH/20
ITA No. 472/JODH/20
ITA No. 475/JODH/20
ITA No. 476/JODH/20
ITA No. 844/JODH/20

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.

Asst. Year

ASSESSEE

RESPONDENT

PAN No.

‘Assessee by Revenue By ITA No. 471/JODH/20 24

NA

SEWA BHARTI SAMITI,

KALANI AND CO. LLP, CHARTERED. ACCOUNTANTS, 5™ FLOOR, MILESTONE BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR TURN, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR 302015

CITE) JAIPUR

ABATS1515R

P.C. PARWAL cA (VIRTUALLY)

O.P. MEENA- CIT- DR (PHYSICALLY)

ITA No. 472/JODH/20 24

NA

SEWA BHARTI SAMITI,

KALANI AND CO. LLP, CHARTERED. ACCOUNTANTS, 5™ FLOOR, MILESTONE BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR TURN, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR 302015

CIT(E) JAIPUR

ABATS1515R

P.C. PARWAL CA (VIRTUALLY)

O.P. MEENA- CIT- DR (PHYSICALLY)

ITA No. 475/JODH/20 24

NA

MANGAL SINGH, RATAN SINGH DEOKI PEDI, JAIN MANDI, OSIAN, JODHPUR, JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN-342301

ar EXEMPTION JAIPUR

AAATM4528P_

SURESH GANG, CA

O.P. MEENA- CIT- DR (PHYSICALLY)

ITA No. 476/JODH/20 24

NA

MANGAL SINGH, RATAN SINGH DEOKI PEDI, JAIN MANDI, OSIAN, JODHPUR, JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN-342301

ar EXEMPTION JAIPUR

AAATM4528P_

SURESH GANG, CA

O.P. MEENA- CIT- DR (PHYSICALLY)

ITA No. 844/JODH/20 24

NA

SHRI HARI

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →