PORWAL YUVAK SANG KOTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) KOTA, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1301/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 August 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the ITAT had already set aside the order rejecting the assessee's registration, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after re-examining the evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to enable the CIT(A) to do so.

What were the facts?

The assessee society's registration under Section 12AB was initially rejected, leading the AO to treat its receipts as income from other sources. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. However, a subsequent ITAT order set aside the registration rejection and remanded the issue for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without considering the subsequent ITAT order that set aside the rejection of the assessee's registration. Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 11,Section 12,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 56(2)(x),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

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: 1301/JPR/2025 Assessment year 2023-24

Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota ITO, 7-O.C.F. Subhash Nagar, Ward-2(1), Kota. Vs Kota. PAN: AAAAP7068G (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Ramit Sharma, Adv. Revenue Represented: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 12-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 25-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.205 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua the assessment order for Assessment year 2023-24 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. The impugned order u/s 143(3) rws 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.02.2025 as well as the notice and proceedings are illegal, bad in law,

I.T.A No. 1301/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota

barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed.

1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Exparty assessment order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law, hence the order may kindly be quashed and entire addition liable to be deleted.

2.

Rs.70,42,140/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,42,140/- made by the ld. AO u/s 56(2)(x), the Id. AO and CIT(A) also erred in disallowing the entire expenses or revenue expenses of i.e grossly erred in taking the entire gross receipts of Rs. 70,42,140/- as income or receipts in place of deficit or surplus and not allowed the exemption u/s 11 and 12. Hence the addition/ disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.

3.

The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not allowing the exemption u/s 11 and 12, also erred on the facts that at the year end31.03.2023 there was no rejection order rather registered provisionally, hence retrospective effect given is invalid, illegal void-ab-inito. Hence the exemption/claim u/s 11 and 12 so denied by the AO is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be directed to allow the same and addition be deleted in full.

3.1 Alternatively and without prejudice to above the Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in treating the assessee as an AOP in place of trust, however if the AO has treated the assessee as an AOP then there is no question of making the addition of Rs.70,42,140/- by applying the provision section u/s 11 and 12. Hence either exemption/claim u/s 11 and 12 so denied by the AO is allowed if not allowed then the disallowance may kindly be deleted in full being an AOP and not applicable provisions of section 11 and 12 and hence additions may kindly be addition be deleted in full.

4.

The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.

I.T.A No. 1301/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota

5.

The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

2.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for adjudication and consideration of the issues at hand are: During scrutiny assessment, the assessee society’s registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 30.03.2024. Thereafter during scrutiny assessment the AO noticed that assessee has received income/donation of Rs. 70,42,140/- and has shown application of income amounting to Rs. 70,42,140/- and claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since, assessee’s registration u/s 12 has already been rejected, the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 70,42,140/- being the income from other sources and thereby framed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file.

I.T.A No. 1301/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota

5.

Ld. AR for the assessee has contended that the impugned order dated 30.03.2024vide which assessee trust’s registration u/s 12AB of the Act was cancelled, has since been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.12.2024 available at page 74 to 81 of the paper book. 6. We have perused the order passed by Tribunal, (supra) vide which registration of the assessee trust vide which registration of the assessee u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected, has since been set aside to be decided afresh by the Ld. CIT(A). Since, Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue raised in the appeal before him, merely on the ground that the assessee trust is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 being not registered u/s 12AB of the Act, which fact got controverted from the order passed by Tribunal order (supra) by the Tribunal. 7. The assessee has also placed on record copies of the documents viz; copy of bank account statements, copy of income & expenditure A/c and ledger for F.Y. 2020-21 and 2021-22, copy of balance sheet and income & expenditure A/c of F.Y. 2021-22, copy of computation of total income for A.Y. 2023-24, copy of constitution of the trust, copy of Form No. 10B filed dated 30.09.2023, copy of Form No. 10BB dated 29.10.2023 filed copy of photographs of various works/event done by the trust and copy of Tribunal order in case of Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota

I.T.A No. 1301/JPR/2025 Page No 5 Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota

vs. CIT(E). All these documents are required to be reexamined by the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. 8. So in these circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) is required to decide the appeal on merit in light of the documents brought on record by the assessee trust. 9. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee trust is allowed for statistical purposes to be send back to Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh. Order pronounced in the open court on 25-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 25/08/2026. *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

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →