SHRI DIGAMBAR JAIN SUDHASAGAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,TONK vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 107/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 August 2026AY 2025-263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and directed them to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The CIT(E) is to pass a fresh order on merits regarding the Section 80G(5) application.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 80G(5) was denied by the CIT(E). The CIT(E)'s order also erroneously mentioned rejection of registration under Section 12AB, which was later clarified as a mistake.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in denying registration under Section 80G(5) and whether the order wrongly included a cancellation of registration under Section 12AB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri PrakashShri Digambar Jain

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieay, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar

आदेश/ORDER

PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur, denying the registration u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:-

I.T.A No. 107/JPR/2026 Page No 2 S hri Di ga mb ar J a i n S ud h as ag a r S hi k s h a n S a n st ha n

“1. The impugned order dated 19.12.2024 of the Act is non-est, bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence, the same kindly be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(E) seriously erred in denying the registration u/s 12AB and also cancelling the provisional registration and hence the registration so denied/ cancelled may be restored and the appellant be held entitled to continue with the registration u/s 12AB of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the application for granting the approval u/s 80G. The rejection so made and exemption so denied u/s 80G is totally contrary to the provisions of law and on facts of the case on various grounds and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 4. Alternatively, and without prejudice, the ld. CIT(E) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not adjudicating the application filed on dated 30.06.2024 seeking approval u/s 80G without adjudicating and deciding the same. The absence of any order denying any such approval sought u/s 80G may be declared as granted to the appellant. 5. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that Ld. CIT(E) while rejecting the order u/s. 80G(5) of the Act also rejected the registration granted u/s. 12AB of the Act, which is legally not correct. Therefore, vide order sheet entry dated 03.08.2026, we directed Ld. CIT-DR to get instruction from the office of Ld. CIT(E). The Revenue vide letter No. CIT(E)/ITO(Hqrs.)/JPR/2026-27/574 dated 06.08.2026 stated that it is inadvertently mentioned as ‘registration u/s. 12AB’ in place of ‘approval u/s. 80G’, whereas it actually relates to the cancellation/rejection of approval u/s. 80G (5) of the Act only. Ld. Counsel further submitted that it got registered with Devsthan Vaibhav vide certificate dated 07.11.2025.

4.

Considering the same, we hereby set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to give one more opportunity of

I.T.A No. 107/JPR/2026 Page No 3 S hri Di ga mb ar J a i n S ud h as ag a r S hi k s h a n S a n st ha n

hearing to the assessee so as to explain the activities and other details carried out by the assessee. It is thereafter Ld. CIT(E) is to pass order on merits of the application filed for registration u/s. 80G(5) of the Act well within the provisions of the Act.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 21/08/2026 Dhananjay K., Sr. PS

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, जयपुर

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →