SHRI RAMAKRISHNA FOUNDATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 500/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 September 2026AY 2026-276 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard to prove the genuineness of its activities. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) had raised concerns about the lack of details for medical relief and treatment expenses, the assessee contended that it had filed replies to show cause notices and was not issued any further notices to provide additional documents. Consequently, the Tribunal found it necessary to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of limitation for filing the appeal was also addressed, with the Tribunal finding the appeal to be filed within the prescribed time.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by Shri Ramakrishna Foundation Trust (the assessee) against two orders dated 01.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (the respondent/CIT(E)). The orders rejected the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds for rejection cited by the CIT(E) were the filing of an incomplete/incorrect Form 10AB and the assessee not being registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee contended that it was not given adequate opportunity to be heard and that the orders were passed ex-parte. The CIT(E) noted that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of its activities, specifically mentioning the lack of details for medical relief and treatment expenses.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G are illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, against principles of natural justice, and void ab-initio, for want of jurisdiction and other reasons, as contended by the assessee? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 12AB and 80G). 2. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications on the grounds of incomplete Form 10AB and non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, without considering the material on record and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, as argued by the assessee? 3. Whether the CIT(E) erred in initiating separate proceedings for cancelling the provisional registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) when the application for fresh registration under Section 12AB was rejected, as contended by the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard, and that material and details were not considered. It was also argued that the rejection of the application for registration/approval under Section 12AB on incorrect allegations of incomplete Form 10AB and non-registration under the RPT Act, 1959, was contrary to law. The assessee further contended that separate proceedings for cancellation of provisional registration were against the principles of law and natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the Ld. DR for the Revenue was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,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, Shri Ramakrishna Foundation Trust by filing aforesaid interconnected appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 01.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the grounds inter-alia that:- I.T.A No. 500 &505/JPR/2026 Page No 2

“1. 1. The impugned order u/s 12AB dt. 01.02.2026 by the Ld. CIT(E) is illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without juri iction, without approval/satisfaction from the competent authority, against the principles of natural justice and void ab-initio on the fac

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 →