SRSL CHARITABLE TRUST,UDAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 55/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 September 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(E) had recorded that notices were served, but the appellant denied service of summons. To ensure the cause of justice, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to one more opportunity to be heard on merits. The appellant had also filed the registration issued under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) was set aside. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the matter afresh, providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, SRSL Charitable Trust, filed an appeal against an order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)). The appeal challenges the rejection of the Trust's application for renewal of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application was made in Form No. 10AB. The CIT(E) rejected the application on grounds of non-prosecution, failure to furnish necessary details, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and alleged non-genuineness of activities and non-compliance with Section 12A(1)(ac)(i). The assessee contended that no notices were served, and the trust was ready to appear before the CIT(E) and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the application for renewal of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) is bad in law and facts, without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard, and is without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and in violation of natural justice? 2. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration/approval under Section 12AA, contrary to law and facts? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the impugned order was bad in law and facts, passed without adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and in violation of natural justice. They contended that no notice was ever served upon the appellant and that the trust is ready to appear before the CIT(E) on any date fixed, requesting one more opportunity. The assessee also stated that registration was previously granted under Section 12AA based on the same facts, and no circumstances have changed, making the rejection a mere change of opinion. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the CIT(E) provided three opportunities with gaps of 12-13 days, but the appellant did not respond. The revenue's representative (CIT) was present at the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12AA,Section 12A(1)(ac)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER

PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellants, SRSL Charitable Trust by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. The Impugned order u/s 12ABof the Act dated 25/11/2025 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without juri iction, barred by limitation and for various other reasons illegal, bad in law, glaring violation of natural justice and hence the same may kindly be quashed.

I.T.A No.55/JPR/2026 Page No 2

2.

The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

All 679 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →