AATMNIRBHAR NGO,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 1653 & 1654/JPR/2025

Aatmnirbhar NGO CIT Exemption, Flat no. 109 Plot No. 104 Jaipur. Vs (Respondent) Prithivi Nagar, Naya Khera Vidhyadhar Nagar, jaipur. PAN: AAKAA7833L (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Jitendra Agarwal, C.A. Revenue Represented: Sh. Ananad Swaroop, CIT Date of hearing : 06-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 31-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Aatmnirbhar NGO by filing aforesaid interconnected appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 29.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’], rejecting his application seeking registration 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on the grounds inter-alia that:-

I.T.A No. 1653 & 1654/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Aatmnirbhar NGO

ITA No. 1653/JPR/2025

“ Ground 1 -Wrongful insistence on Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959

The Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application u/s 12AB solely on the ground that the Appellant is not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, despite the Appellant being duly registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act. 1958 The conclusion that RPT Act registration is mandatory is incorrect, contrary to law, and based on a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court ruling in New Noble Education Society

Ground No.2-Ignoring Binding Judicial Precedents

The Ld CIT(E) failed to apply the binding decision of the Hon’ ble ITAT Jaipur in Trehan Seva Bharti Charitable Trust vs CIT(E), which clearly holds that registration under the RPT Act is not a pre-condition for grant of 12AB registration unless materially linked with the trust's objects: The rejection is therefore contrary to judicial precedence and bad in law.

Ground No. 3 Activities Incorrect Finding Regarding Genuineness of

The Ld. CIT(E) erred in concluding that the Appellant's activities are non- genuine, even though financial statements, bank details, activity proofs, and supporting documents were furnished Minor or curable deficiencies in formats or vouchers cannot justify a finding of non-genuineness at the stage of initial registration, where only a prima facie satisfaction is required.

Ground 4-Violation of Natural Justice and Unjustified Cancellation of Provisional Registration

The Ld CIT(E) failed to provide adequate and reasonable opportunity to furnish remaining documents and proceeded to pass the order in haste, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Further, the cancellation of provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) is unjustified, as the Appellant complied with required conditions and no grounds existed for such cancellation

Ground No 5

The appellant prays for leave to add to amend to delete, or modily the all or any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal.”

I.T.A No. 1653 & 1654/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Aatmnirbhar NGO

ITA No. 1654/JPR/2025

“Ground 1 Wrongful insistence on Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959

The Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application u/s 12AB solely on the ground that the Appellant is not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, despite the Appellant being duly registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 The conclusion that RPT Act registration is mandatory is incorrect, contrary to law and based on a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court ruling in New Noble Education Society

Ground No.2 -- Ignoring Binding Judicial Precedents

The Ld. CIT(E) failed to apply the binding decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur in Trehan Seva Bharti Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) which clearly holds that registration under the RPT Act is not a pre-condition for grant of 12AB registration unless materially linked with the trust's objects. The rejection is therefore contrary to judicial precedence and bad in law

Ground No. 3 Activities Incorrect Finding Regarding Genuineness of

The Ld CIT(E) erred in concluding that the Appellant's activities are non- genuine, even though financial statements, bank details, activity proofs, and supporting documents were furnished. Minor or curable deficiencies in formats or vouchers cannot justify a finding of non-genuineness at the stage of initial registration, where only a prima facie satisfaction is required.

Ground 4-Violation of Natural Justice and Unjustified Cancellation of Provisional Registration

The Ld CIT(E) failed to provide adequate and reasonable opportunity to furnish remaining documents and proceeded to pass the order in haste, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Further, the cancellation of provisional registration u/s 80G is unjustified, as the Appellant complied with required conditions and no grounds existed for such cancellation.

Ground No 5

The appellant prays for leave to add, to amend, to delete, or modify the all or any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal.”

I.T.A No. 1653 & 1654/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Aatmnirbhar NGO

I.T.A No. 1653 & 1654/JPR/2025 Page No 5 Aatmnirbhar NGO

provided with an opportunity to exercise their right to appeal. We find “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 355 days in both appeals, hence delay is condoned and both the appeals are being heard on merits. 4. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : applicant is a charitable society being run by volunteers and is carrying out the charitable activities by providing medical aid to the poor people organizing blood donation camps etc. Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the applicant society seeking registration/approval u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act on the grounds inter-alia that the applicant society is not registered under RPT Act, 1959 and; that applicant society has failed to prove the genuineness of its activities. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that now the applicant trust has been registered under RPT Act, 1959 and all his activities are genuine and placed on record ledger available at page 13-23 of the paper book, wherein every details of the donation and activities carried out by the applicant trust have been duly recorded. 5. Perusal of the impugned orders passed by Ld. CIT(E) shows that these documents have not been examined in the impugned orders despite fact; that in para 3.1 details of all these documents have been given. Without expressing any opinion on merits, we are of the

I.T.A No. 1653 & 1654/JPR/2025 Page No 6 Aatmnirbhar NGO

considered view that entire documents brought on record by the applicant trust are required to be examined by the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover the applicant trust has now been registered under RPT Act, 1959 and as such to decide the issue once for all the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is hereby set aside to be decided afresh after examining the documents available at page 16 to 105 of the paper book which shows activities being carried out by the applicant trust. 6. Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the applicant trust are hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 31/08/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar