NATHU KA FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1212/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 September 2026AY 2026-275 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was based solely on the incorrect sub-clause selected by the Assessee. It was clarified that an institution holding provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) should apply for regular registration under sub-clause (iii). The application form (Form No. 10AB) is the same for both. The Tribunal agreed with the coordinate bench decision in Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha v. CIT (Exemption) that a defect in the manner of presenting the application, such as selecting an incorrect clause, is curable and should not foreclose examination of the substantive claim. The application should be examined as one under sub-clause (iii). The Tribunal noted the insertion of a proviso allowing condonation of delay by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner if there is reasonable cause. The CIT(E) was directed to examine all aspects, including the time limit and condonation of delay, and to consider the application as one made under the appropriate clause. The Assessee was allowed to rectify the form and furnish documents. The CIT(E) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the application. Ground 1.2 was allowed for statistical purposes as the matter was restored due to a curable defect, but the Assessee was cautioned against making a grievance of want of opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nathu Ka Foundation, filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 29.09.2025 for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, selecting sub-clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac). This sub-clause is for institutions whose registration is due to expire. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)), noted that the assessee was not registered under sub-clauses (i) or (iii) and issued a letter on 23.01.2026 seeking justification. The assessee did not reply. The CIT(E) observed that the assessee held provisional registration under sub-clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac). Based on this, the CIT(E) rejected the application as deficient, deeming the assessee ineligible under sub-clause (ii). The assessment year in question is 2026-27. The appeal is against the order of the CIT(E) dated 23.03.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E) rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB is illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, and void ab-initio, as argued by the Assessee. The Assessee contended that the order was passed ex-parte without adequate opportunity and failed to consider material on record. The Revenue relied on the impugned order and pointed out the Assessee's non-response to the CIT(E)'s letter. 2. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) for registration under section 12AB, based on incorrect allegations of non-registration under clause (i) or (iii) of the first proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac), as argued by the Assessee. The Assessee argued that it was entitled to seek regular registration as it held provisional registration and that the application should not have been rejected without considering the material. The Revenue relied on the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi),Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR Before: Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Prakash, Accountant Member ITA No: 1212/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2026-27 PAN: AAETN 0621 N (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue Represented: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT Date of hearing : 23-09-2026 Date of pronouncement : 30-09-2026

PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as "the learned CIT(E)"] dated 23.03.2026 passed in Form No. 10AD under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), rejecting the application of the Assessee for registration under section 12AB of the Act.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under:

"1. 1. The impugned order u/s 12AB dt. 23.03.2026 by the Ld. CIT(E) is illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without juri iction, against the princip

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 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →