KHETESHWAR GURUKUL CHHATRAWAS SAMITI MAYLAWAS,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 949/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 August 20269 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the applications to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit the newly obtained registration and other supporting documents. The CIT(E) is to pass fresh speaking orders after verifying the documents and activities.

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 incomplete documentation and non-production of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee has since obtained the required registration.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval was justified due to non-production of documents, and if a subsequent change in circumstances warrants a fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12A(1)(ac),Section 80G(5)

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 R.S. Poonia, CA (Virtual)
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 Nos. 945, 946, 948 & 949/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years: NA) KHETESHWAR GURUKUL CIT (EXEMPTION) CHHATRAWAS SAMITI JAIPUR D-82B, SIWAD AREA, KRISHNA MARG, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR-302015 PAN NO. AAKAK 1128 J Assessee by Shri R.S. Poonia, CA (Virtual) Revenue by Ms. Shivani Bansal, CIT-DR (Physical) Date of Hearing 04 / 08 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 06 / 08 / 2026.

ORDER PER: SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, A.M. :

These four appeals by the same assessee, M/s Kheteshwar Gurukul Chhatrawas Samiti Maylawas, arise from two orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [“CIT(E)”], both dated 02.12.2024. Since the appeals arise from the same set of facts and involve interconnected issues concerning registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax

2 ITA Nos. 945, 946, 948 & 949/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years NA) Act, 1961 [“the Act”], they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

The appeal-wise particulars are as under: Appeal No. Nature of dispute ITA No. Cancellation of provisional registration granted under clause 945/Jodh/2024 (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) ITA No. Rejection of application for registration under section 946/Jodh/2024 12AB(1)(b) ITA No. Cancellation of provisional approval granted under clause (iv) 948/Jodh/2024 of the first proviso to section 80G(5) ITA No. Rejection of application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) 949/Jodh/2024

3.

In ITA No. 945/Jodh/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional registration and nor issued Show Cause Notice for rejection of provisional registration u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional registration u/s. 12A without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular & notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same. 3. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur by rejecting provisional registration u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.

3 ITA Nos. 945, 946, 948 & 949/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years NA) 4. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 4. In ITA No. 946/Jodh/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur by rejecting application u/s. 12AB (1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same. 2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 5. In ITA No. 948/Jodh/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional approval and nor issued Show Cause Notice for rejection of provisional approval u/s. 80G of the I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional approval u/s. 80G without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular & notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same. 3. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur by rejecting provisional approval u/s. 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same. 4. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 6. In ITA No. 949/Jodh/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

4 ITA Nos. 945, 946, 948 & 949/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years NA) 1. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur rejected the application u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same. 2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. Facts in brief

7.

The assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 29.06.2024 seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) issued a notice dated 07.09.2024 requiring the assessee to furnish certain documents and explanations by 20.09.2024. According to the impugned order, no compliance was made. A reminder dated 27.10.2024 was thereafter issued requiring compliance by 05.11.2024. The assessee sought an adjournment in response thereto. A final opportunity was granted by notice dated 08.11.2024, fixing 12.11.2024 as the date for compliance. The learned CIT(E) recorded that no reply was furnished by the stipulated date and, consequently, proceeded to decide the application on the basis of the material filed with Form No. 10AB.

8.

The learned CIT(E), by the order in Form No. 10AD dated 02.12.2024, rejected the application for registration under section 12AB. The application was rejected principally on the findings that Form No.

5 ITA Nos. 945, 946, 948 & 949/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years NA) 10AB was incomplete, registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 had not been produced, and the material necessary for examination of the genuineness of the activities had not been furnished. While rejecting the application under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B), the learned CIT(E) also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 03.04.2024 under clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. These actions are the subject matter of ITA Nos. 945 and 946/Jodh/2024.

9.

The assessee had also filed Form No. 10AB on 29.06.2024 seeking approval under section 80G of the Act. In those proceedings also, notices dated 07.09.2024, 27.10.2024 and 08.11.2024 were issued. The learned CIT(E) recorded that the requisite documents and explanations had not been furnished. By a separate order in Form No. 10AD dated 02.12.2024, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application for approval under section 80G. The learned CIT(E) observed that registration under section 12A or section 12AB, or notification under section 10(23C), was a precondition for approval under section 80G. Since the application for registration under section 12AB had been rejected by the order of even date, the application for approval under section 80G was also rejected. The learned CIT(E) further cancelled the provisional approval granted to the

6 ITA Nos. 945, 946, 948 & 949/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years NA) assessee on 03.04.2022 under clause (iv) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). These actions are challenged in ITA Nos. 948 and 949/Jodh/2024.

10.

During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ((AR) of the assessee reiterated the grounds of appeal. The learned AR submitted that the principal impediment noticed by the learned CIT(E) was the non-availability of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. It was submitted that the assessee has since obtained the said registration. The learned AR, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to place the registration certificate and the remaining relevant documents before the learned CIT(E), and that the applications be considered afresh on merits.

11.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned orders. However, the learned DR did not raise any objection to the matters being restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after verification of the registration and other supporting material.

12.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The application for registration under

7 ITA Nos. 945, 946, 948 & 949/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years NA) section 12AB was rejected on account of incomplete Form No. 10AB, non-production of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and failure to furnish material necessary for examining the genuineness of the activities of the assessee. The rejection of the application under section 80G is substantially consequential to the rejection of the application under section 12AB, apart from the recorded non-compliance in the proceedings under section 80G.

13.

Before us, the learned AR has specifically stated that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 has now been obtained. This material was admittedly not available before the learned CIT(E) when the impugned orders were passed. The learned DR has also not objected to verification of the subsequent registration and fresh adjudication of the applications by the learned CIT(E).

14.

Having regard to these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the eligibility of the assessee for registration under section 12AB or approval under section 80G, we consider it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the learned CIT(E). Accordingly, both the orders dated 02.12.2024 are set

8 ITA Nos. 945, 946, 948 & 949/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years NA) aside and the applications of the assessee are restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for consideration afresh in accordance with law.

15.

The assessee shall place before the learned CIT(E) the registration certificate issued under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, together with the complete note on its activities, financial statements, bank statements, supporting vouchers and such other documents or explanations as may be called for. The learned CIT(E) shall verify the registration certificate and examine the genuineness of the activities, completeness of the applications and compliance with the statutory requirements. Thereafter, the learned CIT(E) shall pass fresh speaking orders in respect of registration under section 12AB, cancellation of provisional registration, approval under section 80G and cancellation of provisional approval, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

16.

The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish the requisite details within the time allowed by the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) shall decide the matters independently on the basis of the material produced and in accordance with the applicable

9 ITA Nos. 945, 946, 948 & 949/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years NA) provisions of law. All the contentions raised in the appeals are left open for adjudication.

17.

In the result, ITA Nos. 945, 946, 948 and 949/Jodh/2024 filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 06 / 08 / 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 06 / 08 / 2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →