GIRIRAJ SEVA SANSTHAN PANCHDEVAL,SIROHI vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

At the outset, it is noticed that both the appeals have been filed with a delay of 98 days. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit of Shri Kirtiman Singh, Trustee of the assessee trust. It has been explained in the petition and affidavit that the assessee trust was constituted on 25.04.2022 at Sirohi, Rajasthan. At the time of obtaining PAN, the e-mail address of the Advocate engaged for that purpose was furnished in Form No. 49A. Subsequently, in November 2023, the assessee engaged another professional for preparation of accounts, filing of return of income and obtaining registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Act. The e-filing account of the assessee was opened in March 2024 with the e-mail address of the said professional. The assessee applied for provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) and provisional approval under clause (iv) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act in Form No. 10A on 27.03.2024. The provisional registration and approval were granted by two separate orders dated 03.04.2024 in Form No. 10AC for the period from Assessment Year 2024- 25 to Assessment Year 2026-27. Thereafter, applications seeking regular

It is further stated that the notices dated 09.09.2024, 27.10.2024 and 08.11.2024 issued by the learned CIT(E) were sent to the earlier e-mail address furnished at the time of obtaining PAN and, therefore, the same did not come to the knowledge of the professional subsequently engaged by the assessee. Upon noticing this position on the e-filing portal, the contact particulars were updated on 28.11.2024. The professional was under the impression that a fresh notice would be issued by the learned CIT(E).

According to the assessee, when no further notice was received, the e-filing portal was accessed on 25.04.2025. It was then noticed that the learned CIT(E) had already passed the impugned orders dated 01.12.2024 rejecting the applications under sections 12AB and 80G of the Act. The assessee thereafter obtained professional advice and filed the present appeals along with the petition seeking condonation of delay.

The learned AR reiterated the explanation contained in the petition and affidavit and submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any want of diligence on the part of the assessee. He

The learned DR raised no objection to the condonation of delay.

We have considered the submissions and perused the petition for condonation of delay as well as the supporting affidavit. The explanation shows that the delay occurred because the statutory notices and the impugned orders were transmitted to the earlier e-mail address and the impugned orders came to the knowledge of the assessee only upon accessing the e-filing portal on 25.04.2025. The explanation is supported by an affidavit and has not been controverted by the Revenue. The learned DR has also raised no objection to the condonation of delay.

Considering the entirety of the circumstances and being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals within the prescribed period, we condone the delay of 98 days in filing both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits.

The assessee filed an online application in Form No. 10AB on 30.06.2024 seeking registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) read with section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) issued the first notice dated 09.09.2024, requiring the assessee to furnish the prescribed documents and explanations by 20.09.2024. According to the impugned order, no response was received. Further notices dated 27.10.2024 and 08.11.2024 were issued, fixing the due dates for compliance as 05.11.2024 and 12.11.2024, respectively. The learned CIT(E) recorded that the assessee did not comply with any of these notices and, therefore, proceeded to decide the application on the basis of the material accompanying Form No. 10AB.

The first objection raised by the learned CIT(E) was that the assessee had not established its registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The learned CIT(E), referring to sections 2(11) and 17(1) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Income-tax Act, held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was mandatory and that the assessee had failed to establish compliance with the said requirement.

The third objection related to the genuineness of the activities. The learned CIT(E) observed that the assessee had not furnished the details of settlors, trustees or members, list of donors, evidence of donations, details regarding utilisation of funds, annual accounts, bills and vouchers, ledger accounts, bank statements, proof of activities, particulars relating to persons covered under section 13(1)(c), social media details and digital footprint. In the absence of these particulars, the learned CIT(E) held that the genuineness of the activities of the assessee could not be verified.

On the aforesaid grounds, the learned CIT(E), by order dated 01.12.2024 passed in Form No. 10AD under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act rejected the application for registration under section 12AB. The

The assessee had also filed an online application in Form No. 10AB on 30.06.2024 seeking approval under section 80G of the Act. The learned CIT(E) issued notice dated 09.09.2024 requiring compliance by 20.09.2024. Further opportunities were granted through notices dated 27.10.2024 and 08.11.2024, requiring compliance by 05.11.2024 and 12.11.2024, respectively. The learned CIT(E) recorded that no response was received from the assessee. The learned CIT(E) observed that registration under section 12A or 12AB, or notification under section 10(23C), was a precondition for grant of approval under section 80G. Since the application for registration under section 12AB had been rejected by the separate order dated 01.12.2024, the learned CIT(E) held that the application seeking approval under section 80G was also liable to be rejected. Accordingly, by order dated 01.12.2024 passed in Form No. 10AD under section 80G of the Act the learned CIT(E) rejected the application seeking regular approval under section 80G. The learned CIT(E) also cancelled the provisional approval granted under clause (iv) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) by order dated 03.04.2024.

The learned AR further submitted that the impugned orders had been passed without effective participation by the assessee, since the notices issued by the learned CIT(E) had gone to the earlier e-mail address. It was submitted that the material now placed on record may be verified by the learned CIT(E) and the applications may thereafter be decided afresh in accordance with law.

The learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(E) had passed the impugned orders ex parte on account of the failure of the assessee to comply with the notices. The learned DR pointed out that the documents now relied upon and placed on record by the assessee require verification at the level of the learned CIT(E). He, therefore, submitted

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The application seeking registration under section 12AB was rejected principally on three grounds, namely, the failure to establish registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, the incomplete nature of Form No. 10AB and the absence of material necessary for examining the genuineness of the activities of the assessee. The consequential application seeking approval under section 80G was rejected on the ground that the assessee did not possess registration under section 12AB.

It is not in dispute that the impugned orders were passed without any effective compliance by the assessee. The explanation furnished in connection with the condonation of delay shows that the notices were transmitted to an earlier e-mail address. The learned AR has now placed reliance upon the application stated to have been filed by the assessee for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The learned DR has fairly submitted that the documents now placed on record require verification by the learned CIT(E).

In these circumstances, and having regard to the concurrence of both the parties that the documents require verification, we consider it just and proper to set aside the order dated 01.12.2024 passed under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act and restore the application to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

Since the application seeking approval under section 80G was rejected solely as a consequence of the rejection of registration under section 12AB, the order dated 01.12.2024 passed under section 80G is also set aside and the said application is restored to the file of the

The learned CIT(E) shall verify the application and supporting material relating to registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, as well as its present status. The learned CIT(E) shall also permit the assessee to furnish the documents and explanations necessary for examining the completeness of Form No. 10AB, the genuineness of its activities and its compliance with the applicable statutory requirements.

The issues relating to the cancellation of the provisional registration granted under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) and the provisional approval granted under clause (iv) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) are also restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) and shall be decided afresh along with the respective applications.

The assessee shall furnish all the documents, information and explanations called for by the learned CIT(E) and shall not seek any unwarranted adjournment. The learned CIT(E) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thereafter pass separate speaking orders in accordance with law. We have not expressed any

Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 3 in both appeals is general in nature and does not require separate adjudication. In respect of Ground No. 4, there shall be no order as to costs.

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