SHRI SHIV SHANKAR MAHADEV GAU SEWA SAMITI SHEELGAO,VILLAGE SHEELGAON vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The assessee-specific particulars are tabulated below:

Although the assessees have raised several grounds of appeal, their substantive grievance is that the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting their applications for regular registration under section 12AB and

The particulars of the applications and proceedings forming the subject matter of the present appeals are tabulated below:

During the pendency of the appeals arising from the earlier rejection orders, both the assessees filed fresh applications in Form No. 10AB for regular registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. These subsequent applications have given rise to the four appeals presently under consideration.

In the subsequent proceedings, the learned CIT(E) principally held that the applications for regular registration were not maintainable because the provisional registrations on the strength of which the applications had been filed already stood cancelled under the earlier

In the case of Shri Shiv Shankar Mahadev Gau Sewa Samiti Sheelgao, the learned CIT(E) expressly recorded non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 as one of the grounds for rejection. In the case of Gajanand Goshala Samiti, the impugned order referred to the earlier rejection orders dated 16.03.2023 and 24.03.2024, in which non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and non- genuineness of activities had been recorded as grounds for rejection.

The applications seeking approval under section 80G were rejected substantially as a consequence of the rejection of the corresponding applications under section 12AB. The learned CIT(E) observed that registration under section 12A or section 12AB was a prerequisite for approval under section 80G. The provisional approvals under section 80G were consequently treated as cancelled or lapsed.

Subsequently, the appeals arising from the earlier rejection orders came to be decided by the Co-ordinate Bench through a common order

The learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that substantially the same controversy has come before the Tribunal for the second time. The earlier applications of both the assessees were rejected principally on account of the non-availability of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and the alleged failure to prove the genuineness of their activities. The appeals arising from those orders have already been restored by the Co-ordinate Bench to the file of the learned CIT(E).

The learned AR further submitted that both the assessees have since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and copies of the respective registration certificates have been placed on record. It was contended that the principal deficiency which formed the basis of the earlier rejection, therefore, no longer survives. He accordingly prayed that the applications involved in the present appeals

The learned AR further requested that the learned CIT(E) be directed to determine the effective date of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G in accordance with law, after considering the entire chronology of provisional registration, the earlier applications, rejection orders, subsequent applications and the remand ordered by the Tribunal. It was submitted that such a direction was necessary to ensure that the assessees do not suffer hardship merely because the proceedings have passed through successive rounds.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned orders. However, he did not raise any objection to the restoration of the applications to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the common order of the Co- ordinate Bench dated 29.01.2026. The impugned orders in the present appeals were passed on 24.12.2024 and 30.12.2024, whereas the Co-

The earlier and subsequent proceedings are integrally connected. The finding that the subsequent applications were not maintainable was based substantially on the cancellation of the provisional registrations through the earlier rejection orders. Those earlier rejection orders and the applications arising therefrom have since been restored by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the effect of the earlier cancellation cannot be examined independently of the remand already ordered by the Co-ordinate Bench.

The registration of both the assessees under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 have been obtained subsequently. Copies of the registration certificates have been placed on record before us. Since these documents were not available before the learned CIT(E), their authenticity, dates of grant, effective dates and legal effect require examination by the learned CIT(E). The other objections regarding genuineness of activities and compliance with the statutory

In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to set aside all four impugned orders and restore the respective applications to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(E) shall take up the proceedings arising from the earlier remand and the applications involved in the present appeals together and examine them in their proper chronological sequence. The applications under section 12AB shall be decided first. Thereafter, the applications under section 80G shall be decided in accordance with the outcome of the proceedings under section 12AB and upon independent examination of the conditions applicable to approval under section 80G.

In the set-aside proceedings, the learned CIT(E) shall verify the registration certificates issued under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and consider the documents and explanations furnished by the respective assessees regarding their objects, activities, books of account, utilisation of funds and genuineness of activities. The learned CIT(E) shall also examine the legal effect of the earlier common order of the

The subsequent applications shall not be treated as non- maintainable merely by mechanically relying upon the earlier cancellation of provisional registration or approval. The learned CIT(E) shall first give effect to the remand ordered by the Co-ordinate Bench and thereafter determine the maintainability and merits of the respective applications on the basis of the complete record and the applicable statutory provisions.

The learned CIT(E) shall also record a specific finding regarding the effective date from which registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G, if otherwise found admissible, shall operate. For this purpose, the learned CIT(E) shall consider the dates and nature of the provisional registrations and approvals, the dates and statutory character of the earlier and subsequent applications, the effect of the earlier rejection and cancellation orders, the subsequent remand by the Co-ordinate Bench, and the effective dates of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

The learned CIT(E) shall provide an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to both the assessees and shall permit them to furnish all relevant documents and explanations in support of their applications. The assessees are also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and comply promptly with every lawful requisition made by the learned CIT(E). Thereafter, the learned CIT(E) shall pass separate reasoned and speaking orders in respect of each assessee in accordance with law.

In the result, all four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.