SHRI KHANDAL VIPRA VIDYALAYA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 487/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 September 20264 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 378 days in filing the appeals was condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding confusion with recent changes in trust laws and the time taken to obtain proper legal advice. On the substantive issue, 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 provide the assessee trust with one more opportunity of hearing and to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal noted the production of the RPT registration certificate before it. The ratio decidendi is that procedural confusions and subsequent compliance, when explained with sufficient cause, warrant an opportunity for fresh adjudication by the lower authority. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shree Krishan Baladev Gosala Samiti, filed two appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, challenging orders dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)), Jaipur. These orders denied registration under Section 12AB and consequently under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The denial was based on the assessee's lack of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and alleged non-genuineness of its activities. The appeals were filed with a delay of 378 days, which the assessee attributed to confusion regarding recent changes in trust laws, incorrect applications for registration, and seeking proper legal advice. The ITAT condoned this delay. The assessee then produced a Registration Certificate under the RPT Act, dated 30.01.2026, and requested the matter be remanded to the CIT(E). The Revenue had no objection to this.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 378 days in filing the appeals by the assessee is liable to be condoned under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? 2. Whether the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) denying registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, particularly in light of the subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by confusion surrounding new trust laws, incorrect procedural steps taken, and the time taken to obtain correct legal advice. The assessee also submitted that it had since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and requested the matter be remanded to the CIT(E) to allow it to furnish all necessary details for grant of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the learned CIT DR, had no objection to setting aside the matter and remanding it back to the CIT(E), provided the assessee produced all relevant materials, details, and evidence for granting registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 253

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 →