SHREE RAMA VAIKUNTH TEMPLE,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 999/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 September 2026AY 2025-268 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Assessee, Shree Rama Vaikunth Temple, applied for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in Form No. 10AB on 22.09.2025. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)), rejected the application by an order dated 24.03.2026. The rejection was based on the Assessee's failure to obtain registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (RPT Act). The CIT(E) relied on the Supreme Court judgment in New Noble Educational Society v. CCIT and decisions of the Jaipur ITAT. The Assessee contended that the competent authority under the RPT Act, the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, had previously held by an order dated 17.04.1984 that the temple is not a public trust and therefore not required to be registered under the RPT Act. The CIT(E) considered this reply but found it "not tenable". The Assessee appealed this order.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the Assessee's application solely on the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act was unsustainable. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) requires compliance with applicable laws material to the institution's objects. If the competent authority under that other law has determined that the applicant is not required to comply, then there is no non-compliance. The order dated 17.04.1984 of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, which held the temple not to be a public trust under the RPT Act, could not be brushed aside by the CIT(E) without examination and reasons. The Supreme Court's decision in New Noble Educational Society (supra) was distinguished as it dealt with situations where the applicability of State law was not in dispute. However, the Tribunal noted that the Assessee's eligibility for registration under Section 12AB had not been examined, particularly concerning its objects and the genuineness of its activities, and whether the temple is held for public religious or charitable purposes or private religious purposes, which are relevant under Section 13(1)(a). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, directing the CIT(E) to consider the order dated 17.04.1984 and examine all aspects of the application, including the nature of the temple and its objects, after affording the Assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated it had expressed no opinion on the Assessee's eligibility for registration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in refusing registration under Section 12AB of the Act for want of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, when the competent authority under the RPT Act had held that the Assessee is not required to be so registered? Assessee's Contentions: - Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Act applies only if another law is applicable to the institution and is material to its objects. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department, the authority administering the RPT Act, has held that the temple does not fall under that Act. - The order dated 17.04.1984 of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, which stated that registration under the RPT Act is not required, was dismissed by the CIT(E) without assigning reasons. - The Supreme Court judgment in New Noble Educational Society (supra) is distinguishable as it assumes the applicability of State law, which is rebutted in this case. - Reliance was placed on APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust v. CIT (Exemption) (supra) to argue that registration under the RPT Act is not an essential ingredient for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac). Revenue's Contentions: - Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Act makes compliance with applicable laws a condition for registration. - Section 17(1) of the RPT Act is mandatory, and the Supreme Court in New Noble Educational Society (supra) has so held. - Supported the impugned order and relied on decisions of the Jaipur Bench mentioned in the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 17,Section 13(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prakash

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 24.03.2026 passed in Form No. 10AD under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), rejecting the application of the Assessee filed in Form No. 10AB on 22.09.2025 seeking registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) 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: Shree Rama Vaikunth Temple "

1.

The impugned order dt. 24.03.2026 of the Act is bad in law and on facts

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 5,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →