SHRI ARYA UMRAV ARCHANA GAUSHALA SEVA SAMITI DADHWARA,DADHWARA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Pursuant to the provisional registration, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 12.02.2024 seeking regular registration under section 12AB of the Act. During the registration proceedings, the learned CIT(E) issued a notice dated 22.04.2024 requiring the assessee to furnish certain documents and explanations. This was followed by

The learned CIT(E) observed that the assessee was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Referring to sections 2(11) and 17(1) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Act, the learned CIT(E) held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act was mandatory and that the assessee had failed to establish compliance with the said law.

The learned CIT(E) also examined the genuineness of the activities of the assessee. The assessee was required to furnish, inter alia, its annual accounts for the financial year 2023-24, details of receipts and expenditure, ledger accounts, bills and vouchers, particulars of substantial bank transactions, details relating to construction of the Gaushala building, particulars of the number of cows and expenditure on fodder, stock register of fodder, salary particulars, details of government grants and their utilisation, and particulars of payments made to persons specified under section 13(3) of the Act.

On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application for regular registration under section 12AB of the Act. Consequent upon such rejection, the learned CIT(E) also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 07.04.2022. Aggrieved by the rejection of regular registration as well as the cancellation of provisional registration, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, the learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and the written submissions. He submitted that the assessee is a charitable

The learned AR further submitted that the proceedings for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act ordinarily take considerable time and that the delay in obtaining such registration was beyond the control of the assessee. It was contended that the absence of the registration certificate at the time of passing of the impugned order was a procedural and curable deficiency.

The learned AR placed on record a copy of the registration certificate subsequently issued to the assessee under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 on 30.07.2025. He submitted that the principal deficiency noticed by the learned CIT(E) no longer survives. As regards the objections concerning the genuineness of the activities, the learned AR submitted that the assessee had furnished replies and documents during the registration proceedings. He, however, prayed that the

The learned DR relied upon the impugned order and submitted that the assessee had not furnished complete information and supporting documents during the registration proceedings. He submitted that the genuineness of the activities and compliance with all applicable statutory requirements were required to be examined and decided by the learned CIT(E) on the basis of complete material and in accordance with law.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The application for regular registration was rejected on two principal grounds, namely, the absence of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and the failure of the assessee to furnish complete evidence for verification of the genuineness of its activities.

At the same time, the subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act does not, by itself, conclude the independent examination required under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) has recorded specific deficiencies concerning the government grants, utilisation of funds, supporting bills and vouchers, salary expenditure, bank transactions, annual accounts, Gaushala operations and construction expenditure. The written submissions of the assessee state that the required documents were furnished, whereas the impugned order records that the reply was incomplete and that only the bank

Considering the subsequent registration certificate, the nature of the deficiencies noticed by the learned CIT(E), and the undertaking given by the learned AR that the assessee would furnish complete information and supporting evidence, we consider it appropriate to grant one further opportunity to the assessee. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 and restore the application filed in Form No. 10AB to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The learned CIT(E) shall verify the registration certificate issued under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and examine its effect upon the application filed by the assessee. The learned CIT(E) shall also independently examine the objects and genuineness of the activities of the assessee, compliance with section 12AB and rule 17A, and all other applicable statutory requirements.

The assessee shall furnish the annual accounts, details and supporting evidence relating to government grants and their utilisation, ledger accounts, bills and vouchers, particulars and explanations concerning material bank transactions, salary particulars, records

Since the cancellation of the provisional registration formed part of the same impugned order and was consequential to the rejection of the application for regular registration, the said issue is also restored to the file of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) shall decide the application for regular registration and the consequential issue concerning the provisional registration together, afresh and in accordance with law.

The learned CIT(E) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order dealing with the material furnished and the applicable statutory requirements. The assessee shall extend full cooperation and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. In the event of failure to comply with the notices without sufficient cause, the learned CIT(E) shall be at liberty to decide the matter on the basis of the material available on record. We have not

Accordingly, Grounds Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 4, being general in nature, requires no separate adjudication.

In the result, ITA No. 812/Jodh/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes.