SHIV GORAKSH GOSHALLA SAMITI,SIKAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 864/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 August 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to consider the assessee's pending RPT registration application and all relevant documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) because it was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee had since applied for RPT registration, which was pending.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of registration under Section 12AB based on the absence of RPT registration was justified, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case with the pending RPT registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SH. KULDIP SINGH

Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 27.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 864 and 865/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year:2026-27)

Shiv Goraksh Goshalla Vs. CIT Samiti Exemption VPO Roru, Badi Jaipur Panchayat Samiti Fatehpur Laxmangarh, Sikar �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AANTS 1544 A Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Ramit Sharma, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT

Date of Hearing 19.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.08.2026

O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- Both the appeals relate to the same assessee and are against separate orders passed by the CIT (Exemption) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(E)”), both dated 13.03.2026for rejecting assessee’s application seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and approval under Section 80G of the Act respectively.

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos.864 and 865/JPR/2026 Shiv Goraksh Goshalla Samiti 2. Approval u/s 80G of the Act has been denied on account of absence of registration u/s 12AB of the Act. Since the issues involved in the appeals are interlinked, both the appeals were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3.

Order of Ld. CIT(E) reveals that registration u/s 12AB of the Act was denied for the reason that the assessee was found to be not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959 (in short referred to as “RPT”). The Ld.CIT(E) has noted that in the absence of RPT registration the assessee is not entitled to seek registration u/s 12A of the Act (para 2.1 to 2.6 page 3 to 12 of Ld. CIT(E) order).

4.

At the outset itself, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that the assessee has already applied for registration before the competent Authority and is presently pending consideration before the concerned Authorities. Copy of the application filed for registration under the RPT Act dated 18-03-2026 was filed before us. It was submitted that the assessee is desirous of pursuing its application for registration and furnishing all the requisite documents and explanations as may be required by the concerned Authority. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, in view of the registration application having been filed and being pending before the Authorities, the assessee may kindly be granted an opportunity to have its case considered afresh by the Ld. CIT(E). He accordingly pleaded that the matter may be restored to the file of the

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos.864 and 865/JPR/2026 Shiv Goraksh Goshalla Samiti Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration in accordance with law after taking into account the application for registration and all relevant documents/evidences furnished by the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR, though relied upon the impugned order, did not seriously object to restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has stated that its application for registration underRPT Acthas already been filed before the competent Authority and the same is pending for consideration. In these circumstances, and considering the plea of the assessee that it may be granted an opportunity to pursue its claim before the Ld. CIT(E) on the basis of the application and relevant supporting material, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). 8. Considering the averments made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(E) shall consider the assessee’s application for registration and all relevant documents/evidences furnished by the assessee and shall decide the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Further, the assessee is directed to duly cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) and furnish all requisite documents and explanations as may be called for.

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos.864 and 865/JPR/2026 Shiv Goraksh Goshalla Samiti 10. In effect, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Kuldip Singh) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated. 27.08.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →