SHREE C D AGGARWAL TRUST,HANUMANGARH TOWN vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The particulars of the appeals are as under: ITA No. Date of Nature of proceedings order 483/Jodh/2025 29.03.2024 Rejection of registration under section 12AB and cancellation of provisional registration 484/Jodh/2025 29.03.2024 Rejection of approval under section 80G and cancellation of provisional approval 485/Jodh/2025 24.12.2024 Rejection of subsequent application under section 12AB 486/Jodh/2025 24.12.2024 Rejection of subsequent application under section 80G

At the outset, it is noticed that all four appeals have been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The assessee has filed separate petitions seeking condonation of delay. The reasons stated in the petitions are substantially common and, therefore, are considered together.

The assessee has explained that it is a comparatively small charitable trust having limited funds and resources. When the first applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under

The subsequent applications were also rejected by the learned CIT(E) on 24.12.2024, principally on the ground that the provisional registration and provisional approval had already been cancelled by the earlier orders dated 29.03.2024 and, therefore, the subsequent applications were premature or non-maintainable. The assessee has stated that it became aware of the serious consequences of the earlier orders when, in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2023-24, exemption under sections 11 and 12 was proposed to be denied. The assessee has further stated that the assessment order dated 15.03.2025 resulted in substantial tax consequences. On obtaining further professional advice, the assessee was advised to challenge the earlier as well as the subsequent orders passed by the learned CIT(E). The present appeals were thereafter filed along with the condonation petitions.

The learned DR opposed the condonation petitions. He submitted that the record shows repeated instances of incomplete compliance by the assessee, both in the first and in the subsequent registration proceedings. According to the learned DR, the conduct of the assessee reflects continued non-compliance and, therefore, the delay should not be condoned.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the reasons stated in the condonation petitions. The explanation of the

We also take note of the objection of the learned DR that the assessee had not made complete compliance in the proceedings before the learned CIT(E). The failure to make proper compliance is a relevant circumstance. However, the issue relating to non-compliance during the registration proceedings concerns the merits of the applications and the extent to which the assessee had substantiated the genuineness of its activities. It cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof that the delay in approaching the Tribunal was deliberate or mala fide.

The assessee’s explanation may not demonstrate procedural diligence at every stage. Nevertheless, considering the pursuit of the alternative course of filing fresh applications, the subsequent assessment consequences, the interconnected nature of the four proceedings and the undertaking to make complete compliance, we are satisfied that the assessee should not be denied adjudication on merits solely on account of the delay. The objection of the learned DR regarding the past non-

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing all four appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.

In ITA No. 483/Jodh/2025, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the application filed by the assessee u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of Income- tax Act, 1961 by making various incorrect & irrelevant observations without appreciating the explanation of assessee in correct perspective and by holding that (i) the applicant failed to furnish point-wise reply but only furnished documents; and (ii) applicant’s activities are non-genuine. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) has further erred on facts and in law in cancelling the provisional registration dt. 10.03.2022 granted by CIT u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(Exemption) was not justified to hold that the activities carried by the assessee trust were not genuine. 4. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 14. In ITA No. 484/Jodh/2025, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the application filed by the assessee under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) in Form No.10AB seeking regularization of approval u/s 80G of Income-tax Act, 1961 by without appreciating the explanation of assessee in correct perspective and by holding that (i) approval u/s 80G

In ITA No. 485/Jodh/2025, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the application filed by the assessee u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of Income- tax Act, 1961 by making various incorrect & irrelevant observations without appreciating the explanation of assessee in correct perspective and by holding that (i) the applicant has no valid provisional registration certificate u/s 12A, therefore its application dated 28.06.2024 is premature/non-maintainable; and (ii) applicant’s activities are non-genuine. 2. In facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(Exemption) was not justified to hold that the activities carried by the assessee trust were not genuine. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 16. In ITA No. 486/Jodh/2025, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CITI has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the application filed by the assessee under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) in Form No.10AB seeking regularization of provisional approval u/s 80G of Income-tax Act, 1961 by without appreciating the explanation of assessee in correct perspective and by holding that (i) the applicant has no valid provisional registration certificate u/s 80G, therefore its application dated 28.06.2024 is premature/non-maintainable; and (ii) approval u/s 80G

On 20.09.2023, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking regular registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) issued a notice dated 06.12.2023 requiring the assessee to furnish documents and explanations by 14.12.2023. According to the learned CIT(E), the assessee furnished certain documents but did not furnish a point-wise reply. Upon examining the documents, the learned CIT(E) noticed various deficiencies and issued a further show-cause notice dated 02.03.2024, fixing the matter for compliance on 11.03.2024.

The assessee furnished lists of beneficiaries. The learned CIT(E), however, recorded that the lists relating to medical and Kirana distribution did not contain mobile numbers. In the list relating to Khal Binola distribution, three persons were contacted on a test-check basis. The learned CIT(E) recorded that one number was stated to be incorrect, one number was not valid and the third person denied association with the named Gaushala.

The learned CIT(E), therefore, held that the genuineness of the activities was not established and that there was continued non- compliance with the notices. By the order dated 29.03.2024, the application for regular registration under section 12AB was rejected. The provisional registration granted on 10.03.2022 was also cancelled.

The assessee had simultaneously filed an application on 20.09.2023 seeking regular approval under section 80G. The learned CIT(E) rejected this application by a separate order dated 29.03.2024. The first reason recorded was that registration under section 12A or section 12AB is a precondition for approval under section 80G and that the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB had already been

Instead of challenging the orders dated 29.03.2024, the assessee filed fresh applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on 28.06.2024.

In the subsequent proceedings under section 12AB, the learned CIT(E) issued a questionnaire dated 19.07.2024, to which the assessee furnished a reply on 05.08.2024. A show-cause notice dated 30.11.2024 and a further letter dated 06.12.2024 were thereafter issued. The learned CIT(E) observed that the assessee’s earlier application had already been rejected and the provisional registration granted on 10.03.2022 had been cancelled. In the absence of a valid provisional registration, the

The learned CIT(E) also held that the deficiencies concerning the genuineness of the activities remained unresolved. It was observed that the assessee had not furnished the final accounts for the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25, ledger accounts and supporting bills and vouchers, explanations regarding bank transactions exceeding Rs.20,000/-, details of payments to persons specified under section 13(3), photographs and other evidence demonstrating the activities actually carried out by the trust. Accordingly, the subsequent application under section 12AB was rejected by order dated 24.12.2024 on the grounds that it was premature or non-maintainable and that the genuineness of the activities had not been established.

The subsequent application for approval under section 80G filed on 28.06.2024 was also rejected by a separate order dated 24.12.2024. The learned CIT(E) held that the provisional approval under section 80G had already been cancelled by the order dated 29.03.2024 and, therefore, the subsequent application was premature or non-maintainable. The application was also rejected on the ground that the assessee did not

Before us, the learned AR reiterated the facts and the explanation furnished in the condonation petitions. He submitted that the assessee is a comparatively small charitable trust established during the Covid-19 period for carrying on public welfare activities, including distribution of food and essential articles to needy persons and activities relating to the welfare and healthcare of animals.

The learned AR submitted that certain documents had been furnished before the learned CIT(E), but the responses were not properly compiled and presented point-wise. He submitted that the assessee is now in a position to furnish complete books of account, bank statements, ledger accounts, bills and vouchers, beneficiary-wise details and evidence regarding the activities carried on by it. It was further submitted that the assessee would produce the beneficiaries or furnish such verifiable particulars as may be required by the learned CIT(E).

The learned AR further submitted that the subsequent applications were rejected mainly because the provisional registration and approval had been cancelled under the earlier orders. He, therefore, requested

The learned DR relied upon the impugned orders.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. We note that certain documents were furnished before the learned CIT(E), but the replies were not properly compiled and presented point-wise. The AR requested that the subsequent application dated 28.06.2024 may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for consideration afresh. He undertook that the assessee would furnish complete books of account, annual accounts, bank statements, ledger accounts, bills and vouchers, beneficiary-wise details and all other evidence required for examining the genuineness of its activities.

The learned DR relied upon the impugned orders and submitted that the assessee had repeatedly failed to make complete compliance. He submitted that the learned CIT(E) had recorded specific discrepancies

We find that the learned CIT(E) has recorded specific and material deficiencies concerning the evidence furnished by the assessee. The assessee was required to establish the actual conduct and genuineness of its activities by producing complete and verifiable material. The record indicates that the assessee did not make proper and complete compliance despite the opportunities afforded to it.

At the same time, it is also evident that the assessee had furnished certain documents, including income and expenditure accounts, photographs, some bills and lists of beneficiaries. Thus, it is not a case of complete absence of material. The difficulty arose because the information and evidence were incomplete, were not furnished in a point-wise manner and could not be satisfactorily verified. The learned AR has now given a categorical undertaking that the assessee will make complete compliance and furnish all the evidence required by the learned CIT(E).

While adjudicating the matter afresh, the learned CIT(E) shall not treat the cancellation of the provisional registration under the earlier order dated 29.03.2024 as an impediment to the consideration of the assessee’s eligibility for regular registration. The earlier cancellation of provisional registration shall not constitute an independent ground for rejecting the application in the set-aside proceedings. The learned CIT(E) shall examine the objects, genuineness of the activities and compliance with the other statutory requirements independently on the basis of the complete material furnished by the assessee.

Although the subsequent application was filed on 28.06.2024, the assessee’s substantive claim for regular registration originated from its

The assessee shall furnish complete accounts and all supporting documents and explanations required by the learned CIT(E) to establish the genuineness of its activities. The learned CIT(E) may undertake necessary verification in accordance with law. Any adverse material proposed to be relied upon shall be confronted to the assessee, with a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The application for approval under section 80G, which is the subject matter of ITA No. 486/Jodh/2025, was rejected principally because the assessee did not possess a valid provisional approval and registration under section 12AB had not been granted. Since the issue of

We accordingly set aside the order dated 24.12.2024 impugned in ITA No. 486/Jodh/2025 and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E). In the set-aside proceedings, the cancellation of the provisional approval under the earlier order dated 29.03.2024 shall not be treated as an independent impediment to the consideration of the assessee’s eligibility for approval under section 80G.

The assessee’s substantive claim for regular approval under section 80G arose from its first application in Form No. 10AB filed on 20.09.2023. Therefore, if the learned CIT(E), upon verification and after considering the outcome of the proceedings under section 12AB, finds the assessee eligible for approval under section 80G, such approval shall be granted with reference to and on the basis of the first application dated 20.09.2023, and not merely from the date of the subsequent application dated 28.06.2024, subject to fulfilment of the statutory conditions and the provisions applicable to such approval.

The relief in ITA Nos. 485 and 486/Jodh/2025 is granted as one final opportunity. The assessee shall make complete and timely compliance with every notice issued by the learned CIT(E) and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. If the assessee fails to comply without sufficient cause, the learned CIT(E) shall be at liberty to decide the matters on the basis of the material available on record. After affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the learned CIT(E) shall pass separate speaking orders in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for registration or approval.

In the result: ITA No. 483/Jodh/2025 is dismissed as infructuous. ITA No. 484/Jodh/2025 is dismissed as infructuous.