SHREE JAIN SAVETAMBAR KHATARGACH SHREESANG JASOL,BARMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 246/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 August 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to comply with the queries.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under section 12AB was rejected by the CIT(E) due to incomplete form, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, and non-genuineness of activities. The assessee subsequently obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the registration application without providing an opportunity to comply with deficiencies, and if the subsequent compliance warrants reconsideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) and Smt. Raksha Birla CA, (Physically)
For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, CIT-DR

PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY; V.P. :

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 29-11-2024, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [in short ‘CIT(E)’], Jaipur, rejecting assessee's application seeking registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2 ITA No. 246 /Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: NA) 2. It is noticed that there is a delay of 39 days in filing the present appeal. After taking note of the reasons shown for delay, we are satisfied that it was not due to any deliberate act of negligence on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. Assessee's application seeking registration was rejected through an ex-parte order primarily for the following reasons: i. Incomplete Form 10AB. ii. Non-Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (RPT Act). iii. Non-genuineness of the activities and non-compliance.

4.

At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that in the meanwhile, the assessee has obtained registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. 5. Insofar as the other grounds of rejection, learned counsel submitted, since the application was rejected ex-parte, the assessee did not get any opportunity to comply. Thus, he requested the matter may be restored to learned CIT(E) to enable the assessee to comply with all the queries raised by learned CIT(E). 6. Learned CIT(DR) has no objection.

3 ITA No. 246 /Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: NA) 7. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned CIT(E) and restore the matter back to him for de novo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand Mahadeokar) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President

Dated : 07/08/2026. AKS/- True Copy

Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →