BOTHRA PARSHVANATH JAIN MANDIR,BARMER vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 293/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 August 20267 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the orders of the CIT(E). The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, considering the newly available registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and other documents, and affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G were rejected by the CIT(E) due to non-compliance with notices and incomplete particulars, including lack of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The assessee appealed against these rejections, citing reasons for the delay and non-compliance due to their previous authorized representative.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration and approval without considering all available material, and whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE

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

PER: SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR; AM :

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 21.02.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur [“CIT(E)”], whereby the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961[“the Act”] and the application for approval under section 80G of

2 ITA No. 293 and 294/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: NA) the Act were rejected. Since both the appeals arise out of the same set of facts and involve interconnected issues, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

At the outset, there is delay of 690 days in filing both the appeals. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The learned AR submitted that the relevant papers had been entrusted to the then Authorised Representative for attending the proceedings before the learned CIT(E). However, the notices received at the e-mail address of the said Authorised Representative were neither complied with nor brought to the notice of the trustees. Consequently, the trustees were unaware of the proceedings as well as the rejection of the applications. It was submitted that immediately upon coming to know about the rejection, the assessee obtained the relevant particulars, engaged another counsel and preferred the present appeals. The learned AR, therefore, submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any lack of bona fides on the part of the assessee.

3.

We have considered the explanation furnished in the condonation petition. The circumstances narrated therein sufficiently explain the reasons for the delay. There is nothing on record to suggest that the

3 ITA No. 293 and 294/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: NA) assessee derived any advantage by filing the appeals belatedly or that the delay was intentional. In our considered view, the assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed period. The Departmental Representative raised no serious objection in condoning the delay if the matter is restored to the file of CIT(E) for deciding afresh. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

4.

Briefly stated, the assessee had filed applications on 29.09.2022 seeking registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Act. The learned CIT(E) rejected the application under section 12AB, inter alia, on account of non-compliance with the notices, incomplete particulars, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and inability to verify the genuineness of the activities. The application under section 80G was thereafter rejected consequentially, as the assessee had not been granted registration under section 12AB.

5.

Before us, the learned AR reiterated that the non-compliance before the learned CIT(E) had occurred due to the circumstances

4 ITA No. 293 and 294/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: NA) explained in the condonation petition. It was submitted that the assessee is now in possession of the requisite material and is ready to furnish all necessary documents and explanations before the learned CIT(E). Significantly, the learned AR also placed on record a copy of the registration obtained by the assessee under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which was not available before the learned CIT(E) when the impugned orders were passed. The learned AR accordingly prayed that one effective opportunity may be granted to the assessee and both matters be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the rejection of the application under section 12AB was substantially on account of non- compliance and the consequent absence of the requisite material before the learned CIT(E). One of the specific grounds for rejection was also non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee has now placed before us a copy of such registration. This material admittedly was not available for consideration before the learned CIT(E).

5 ITA No. 293 and 294/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: NA) 7. In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for registration, we are of the considered view that the matter requires fresh examination by the learned CIT(E) in the light of the complete material now available with the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order relating to registration under section 12AB and restore the application to the file of the learned CIT(E) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The learned CIT(E) shall consider the registration obtained under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 as well as all other documents, accounts, details of activities and explanations that may be furnished by the assessee and thereafter decide the application on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure full and timely compliance with the proceedings before the learned CIT(E).

8.

As regards the application under section 80G, the impugned order itself shows that the same was rejected essentially as a consequence of rejection of the application under section 12AB. Since the issue of registration under section 12AB has been restored for fresh adjudication, the consequential issue relating to approval under section 80G also

6 ITA No. 293 and 294/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: NA) requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the order passed in relation to section 80G is also set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E), who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the outcome of the proceedings under section 12AB and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

9.

We make it clear that all issues are left open for consideration by the learned CIT(E) and our observations are confined only to restoration of the matters for fresh adjudication.

10.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 07 / 08 / 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 07 / 08 / 2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS

7 ITA No. 293 and 294/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: NA) 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 →