SPORTIVA WINGS FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 831 and 838/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year:2026-27) Sportiva Wings Foundation Vs. CIT Swapnil Verma (Secretary), Exemption R/o 23,24 Shriji Nagar, Kailash Height Lal Kothi Durgapura Jaipur Tonk Road, Jaipur 206, Luhadia Tower, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AANAA 8730 D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Shailender Kumar Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Neeraj Bansal, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT Date of Hearing 20.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.08.2026 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 09.02.2026 for rejecting assessee’s application seeking registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and approval under

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 831and 838/JPR/2026 Sportiva Wings Foundation Section 80G of the Act. The grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act is primarily passed on the availability of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Since the issues involved in the appeals are interlinked, both the appeals were taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Order of the Ld. CIT(E) reveals that both the application of the assessee seeking approval u/s 12A and 80G of the Act were rejected since the assessee had failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E), and therefore it could not be established and determined, whether the assessee was genuinely carrying out charitable activities as per its object. Further the Ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee had failed to regularize the provisional registration granted to it earlier and therefore, also he held the genuineness of the activities tohave not been subjected to verification after the grant of provisional registration. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended before us, that the assessee had earlier been granted provisional registration, but it failed to regularize it within the time provided as per law. Therefore, the assessee had filed an application afresh seeking registration u/s 12A and U/s 80G of the Act. He contended that he has remained unheard and has not been given adequate opportunity to demonstrate the genuineness of the activities carried out by it. He pointed out that only two notices were issued to the assessee which are reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(E), and therefore he contended that adequate opportunity of hearing was also not afforded to assessee. He pleaded restoration of both the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), so as

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 831and 838/JPR/2026 Sportiva Wings Foundation to satisfy the Ld. CIT(E) about the genuineness of the activities carried out by it and seek registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act. 4. Considering the averments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as above and noting that the assesses application seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act and approval u/s 80G of the Act has been rejected on account on the ground of genuineness of its activities not being established solely due to non compliance by the assessee applicant to notices issued to it, we are inclined to restore the matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to be considered afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In effect, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Kuldip Singh) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 25.08.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur