SHREE KRISHAN BALADEV GOSALA SAMITI,BUNDI vs. CIT EXEMPTION JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 290/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 September 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 378 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding confusion in trust laws and procedural difficulties in obtaining correct legal advice. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee trust. The assessee was to be allowed to file all necessary details and evidence before the CIT(E) for consideration for grant of registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G(5) of the Act. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shree Krishan Baladev Gosala Samiti, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 289 and 290/JPR/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, against orders dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur. These orders denied registration under Section 12AB and consequently under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were filed with a delay of 378 days, which the assessee attributed to confusion regarding recent changes in trust-related laws, incorrect applications for registration, and seeking proper legal advice. The assessee submitted a notarized affidavit explaining this delay. The ITAT condoned the delay. The assessee then produced a Registration Certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, dated 30.01.2026, and requested the matter be set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 378 days in filing the appeals by the assessee is liable to be condoned, turning on the sufficiency of the cause explained in the assessee's affidavit. Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to confusion arising from recent changes in trust-related laws, incorrect procedural steps taken by the initial counsel, and the time taken to obtain correct legal advice regarding the appropriate remedy. The assessee relied on the notarized affidavit to explain these circumstances. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the CIT DR, had no objection to setting aside the matter back to the CIT(E) but insisted on the production of all relevant materials, details, and evidence by the assessee for granting registration. No specific argument was recorded regarding the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Hearing: 23.09.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

Per T. R. Senthil Kumar, JM :-

These two appeals are filed by the assessee as against separate orders both dated 25.11.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur denying registration under section 12 AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and for non-genuineness of the activities and consequently denying registration u/s 80G of the Act. Asst. Years: NA

2.

The registry has noted that there is a delay of 378 days in filing the above appeals by the assessee. The assessee vide a notarized affidavit explained the delay in filing the appeals as follows:

“2. That 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 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →