SHRI DURGALAL KAUSHLYA TURKIA CHARITABLE TRUST,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIT EXEMTOPM, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 1599 & 1600/JPR/2025 Shri DurgalalKashlyaTurkia Charitable Trust IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,“B” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1599 & 1600/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2025-26) Shri Durgalal Vs. CIT KaushlyaTurkia Charitable Exemption, Trust, Jaipur 17 Raghukul, Pratap Nagar Dadabari, Kota �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABFTS2932K Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Anish Maheshwari, CA Respondent by : Mrs. AlkaGautam, CIT

Date of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.05.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present two appeals have been preferred by assessee against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(E)”) dated 25.09.2025 rejecting the applications of the assessee for regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) as well as

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 1599 & 1600/JPR/2025 Shri DurgalalKashlyaTurkia Charitable Trust under clause (iii) to first proviso of Sub-Section (5) of Section 80G of the Act. 2. Firstly, we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1599/JPR/2025 which is against the rejection of final/regular registration u/s 12A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee trust was formed in the year 2022 and the assessee trust had commenced its activities on 11.11.2022. Thereafter, the assessee trust applied for provisional registration which was granted to the assessee trust on 28.02.2023. Thereafter, the assessee trust applied for regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act on 29.03.2025. The Ld. CIT(E) observed that as per the relevant provisions of the Act, the assessee trust was supposed to apply for regular registration within six months of commencement of its activities or before six months from the expiry of its provisional registration, whichever is earlier. He observed that since the assessee trust had already commenced its activities on 11.11.2022, therefore, the application of the assessee for final registration was not maintainable. Further, he observed that the assessee had not furnished certain details called for, such as details of donation given to the trust by Shri Maheshwari Samaj and details of expenditure incurred on charitable activities. He, therefore, rejected the application of the assessee for final registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and at the same time also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. In this case, the Ld. CIT(E) has observed that the assessee trust had

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 1599 & 1600/JPR/2025 Shri DurgalalKashlyaTurkia Charitable Trust already commenced its activities even before the grant of provisional registration. He therefore, held that since the assessee trust was supposed to apply for final registration within 6 months from commencement of its activities. It seems that the Ld. CIT(E) is of the view that the assessee trust was supposed to apply for final registration even before the grant of provisional registration, which is impossible. The Ld. CIT(E) has misconstrued the relevant provisions. If the view of Ld. CIT(E) is to be accepted, then any trust, which has already been in charitable activities but earlier has not taken registration u/s 12A of the Act, but subsequently, intends to take benefit of registration u/s 12A of the Act, will be eligible for grant of final/regular registration and such registration will be restricted to the extent of period of provisional registration only. Neither there is any such intent in the statute nor what the Ld. CIT(E) has supposed, can be inferred, otherwise, from the relevant provisions of the statute. If a holistic view is taken of the relevant provisions, it would mean that a trust which is already formed and doing charitable activities and subsequently, applies for and granted provisional registration, the relevant date to be taken under consideration of its commencement of its activities for the purpose of limitation for seeking final/regular registration, will be the date after grant of provisional registration. However, in this case, the assessee had not applied within the six months of its commencement of activities even after grant of provisional registration. On being asked to explain in this respect, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that he had also interpreted aforesaid provisions in line with

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 1599 & 1600/JPR/2025 Shri DurgalalKashlyaTurkia Charitable Trust that of the Ld. CIT(E) and therefore was confused that how can the assessee apply within six months of commencement of its activities when the activities had already been commenced before the grant of provisional registration. The assessee was in the same confusion, in which the Ld. CIT(E) was. Therefore, the assessee had chosen to apply for final registration before the expiry of six months of the provisional registration, as in their view, the first condition was not applicable to the assessee. We note this is a bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee trust in misinterpreting the provisions. If the Income Tax Authorities, Ld. CIT(E) can misconstrue the relevant provisions, so can the assessee be also confused. Even otherwise, the reasoning given by Ld. CIT(E) for rejection of the application stating that same is premature is not emanating from the records. On the one hand, the Ld. CIT(E) has written that the assessee trust was supposed to apply from the date of six months of its commencement of its activities hence, the same is time barred, on the other hand, he is holding that the application is premature. Under the circumstances and in view of the discussion made above, this ground mentioned by the Ld. CIT(E) for rejection of the application of the assessee for registration u/s 12A of the Act is not legally justified. 4. Secondly, so far as the observation of the Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee had not furnished the relevant records, the learned counsel has submitted that the assessee had uploaded ‘online’ the relevant details but, perhaps the same did not come to the notice of the Ld. CIT(E), resulting into the aforesaid observation of the Ld. CIT(E).

P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 1599 & 1600/JPR/2025 Shri DurgalalKashlyaTurkia Charitable Trust 5. In view of our observation made above, it is held that due to ongoing confusion and misinterpretation of the relevant provisions, not only by the assessee but also by Ld. CIT(E), thedelay in filing the application for regular registration is hereby condoned. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) will decide the application of the assessee on merits as the limitation issue has been decided by us in favour of the assessee. In the meanwhile, the provisional registration grant to the assessee is restored which will be subject to the final decision on the application of the assessee for regular registration. 6. So far as the rejection of the application of the assessee under Clause (iii) to first proviso of Sub-Section (5) of Section 80G of the Act is concerned, the same was consequential to the rejection of the application of the assessee for registration u/s 12A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) on the application of the assessee for approval under Clause (iii) to first proviso of Sub- Section (5) of Section 80G of the Act is also set aside and the matter is, accordingly, restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for decision afresh. 7. With the above observation, both the appeals of the assessee trust are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 26/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 26.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS