VIDHYALAY UDHYAM ASSOCIATION,II-NEW SARDARPURA ALU FACTORY, UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 78/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 August 2026AY 2024-253 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that rejecting the application on a technical ground was improper, especially since the assessee had obtained provisional registration. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G were rejected by the CIT(E). The Section 12AA application was rejected on a technical ground for mentioning a wrong code, despite the assessee having received provisional registration.

What were the issues?

Whether rejection of registration/approval applications on technical grounds is justified when provisional registration has been granted and the assessee is otherwise eligible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,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 CA Yogesh Parwal, (Virtually)
For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 77 and 78/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: NA)

Vidhyalay Udhyam Association Commissioner of Income II-New Sardarpura Alu Factory, Tax (Exemption), Udaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan-313001 PAN No. AAGCV 4264 L Assessee by Shri CA Yogesh Parwal, (Virtually) Revenue by Ms. Shivani Bansal, CIT-DR (Physically) Date of Hearing 04 / 08 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 07 / 08 / 2026.

ORDER PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: The captioned appeals by the assessee arise out of two separate orders dated 27.11.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Jaipur rejecting assessee’s applications seeking registration u/s 12AA and approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As could be seen from the impugned order of Ld. CIT(E), the application seeking

2 ITA Nos. 77 & 78/Jodh/2025 Asst. Years: NA registration u/s 12AA of the Act was rejected on technical ground for mentioning wrong code. Undisputedly, the assessee is a company u/s 8 of Indian Companies Act.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee had submitted that provisional registration in Form 10AC has been granted to the assessee for five years. In other words, assessee’s status as a charitable organization, prima facie, has been accepted. Therefore, rejection of the application on technical ground in our view is improper.

4.

In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to treat the application filed by the asessee as a valid application and decide on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In so far as appeal relating to rejection of approval u/s 80G of the Act, since we have set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(E) rejecting assessee’s application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act, this matter also requires to be set aside and restored back to his file. Accordingly, the impugned order passed u/s 80G of the Act is also set aside.

3 ITA Nos. 77 & 78/Jodh/2025 Asst. Years: NA 5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

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

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 07/08/2026. Nimisha, Sr. 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 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →