SHRI RAJARAM GHOSHALA,JODHPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 419/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 September 20264 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Rajaram Goshala, filed appeals against two orders dated February 13, 2026, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)). These orders rejected the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds for rejection cited by the CIT(E) were the filing of an incomplete Form 10AB and the non-registration of the assessee under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee contended that all necessary documents, including the RPT Act registration certificate, were submitted and that an adequate opportunity to be heard was not provided before the rejection.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were not sustainable in the eyes of law. The primary reason for this decision was that the appellant had not been provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. While the CIT(E) rejected the applications on grounds of incomplete Form 10AB and non-registration under the RPT Act, 1959, the assessee's representative claimed that all documents were submitted and no further notice was received. The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of these contentions, found that the lack of adequate opportunity rendered the orders invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after providing the appellant with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur, rejecting the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is wrong, unwarranted, and bad in law, requiring direction for registration? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)). 2. Whether the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur, rejecting the application under Section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is wrong, unwarranted, and bad in law, requiring direction for registration? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 80G(5)(ii)). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that all required documents, including the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 certificate, were submitted. They also contended that they were not provided with an adequate opportunity to be heard before the rejection of their applications. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the Revenue's representative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 80G,Section 80G(5)(ii)

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, Shri Rajaram Goshala by filing aforesaid interconnected appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the ground that:- I.T.A No. 418 & 419/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Shri Rajaram Goshala

“1. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur by rejecting application u/s 12A(ac)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.

2.

That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.

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

All 5,970 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →