SHREE DHENU GOPAL GOSHALA SEVA SAMITI,RAJSAMAND vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 489/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 August 2026AY 2025-265 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 application for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to verify the newly obtained Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and the genuineness of activities.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the application primarily because the assessee was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and also due to unverified genuineness of activities.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of registration under Section 12AB was justified solely on the grounds of non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and unverified activities, especially when new evidence is presented.

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 CA Apeksha Kalra
For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal CIT-DR

PER: SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR; AM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur, rejecting the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA No. 489/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(Exemption) has grossly erred in rejecting the final registration application filed u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such denial of registration is invalid in law and facts, hence deserves to be quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(Exemption) has further erred in rejecting the registration application on the ground of Non-registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Such denial of registration is invalid in law and facts hence deserves to be quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(Exemption) has further erred in rejecting the registration application on the ground of Non-Genuineness of Activities. However, the activities of the trust are completely genuine and explainable. Therefore, the denial of registration on this basis is completely irrational, illogical and against the principle of natural justice, hence deserves to be rolled back. That the appellant reserves the right to add/ alter/ modify/ deleted any or all grounds at any time before the hearing. Condonation of Delay

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the appeal is barred by limitation by 192 days, as reported by the Registry. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. It has been explained that the delay occurred due to the inadvertent misplacement of the duly signed documents which were required to be forwarded to

3 ITA No. 489/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) the authorised representative for completing the filing of the appeal. It was submitted that the lapse was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention and that the assessee took immediate corrective steps upon becoming aware of the same. The learned DR raised no objection to the condonation of delay. Having regard to the explanation furnished in the petition and the supporting affidavit, and considering that the assessee should not be deprived of adjudication on merits for an inadvertent procedural lapse, we condone the delay of 192 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

Briefly stated, the assessee had filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 31.05.2024 seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) rejected the application primarily on the ground that the assessee was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The learned CIT(E) also observed that certain details and supporting evidence called for during the registration proceedings had not been furnished and, therefore, the genuineness of the activities could not be verified.

5.

Before us, the learned AR submitted that the assessee now possesses the registration certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust

4 ITA No. 489/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) Act, 1959, dated 25.11.2024. It was submitted that the certificate requires verification by the learned CIT(E) and, therefore, the matter may be restored to his file for fresh consideration. The learned DR raised no objection to the restoration of the matter to the learned CIT(E).

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The principal objection of the learned CIT(E) was the non-availability of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee has now placed reliance upon a registration certificate stated to have been issued on 25.11.2024, which was not available for verification before the learned CIT(E). In these circumstances, the certificate and its effect upon the assessee’s eligibility for registration under section 12AB require examination at the level of the learned CIT(E).

7.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 and restore the application to the file of the learned CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. The learned CIT(E) shall verify the authenticity and validity of the registration certificate dated 25.11.2024 and shall also examine the genuineness of the activities on the basis of the documents and explanations furnished by the assessee. The

5 ITA No. 489/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) assessee is directed to furnish all the requisite details and extend full cooperation in the proceedings. The learned CIT(E) shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is 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 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 →