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

ITA 999/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 September 2026AY 2025-268 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shree Rama Vaikunth Temple, filed an application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in Form No. 10AB. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)], Jaipur, 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 Jaipur Bench ITAT orders. The assessee had submitted that the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, had previously held in an order dated 17.04.1984 that the temple is not a public trust under the RPT Act and therefore registration is not required. The CIT(E) considered this reply but found it not tenable.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) erred in refusing registration solely on the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act, especially when the competent authority under the RPT Act had determined that the temple is not required to be registered. The Tribunal noted that section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) requires compliance with applicable laws material to the objects, and if the administering authority states no such requirement exists, there can be no non-compliance. The order dated 17.04.1984 of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, which found the temple to be a private temple not falling under the RPT Act, was a determination within the RPT Act's machinery. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) brushed aside this order without examination and without reasons. The Supreme Court judgment in New Noble Educational Society was distinguished as it dealt with cases where the applicability of the State law was not in dispute. However, the Tribunal also noted that the issues of the temple's objects and the genuineness of its activities, as required by section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and relevant to section 13(1)(a), had not been examined by the CIT(E). 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 all aspects, including the 1984 order and the nature of the temple's objects and activities.

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 temple is not required to be registered under that Act? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that 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. Since the authority administering the RPT Act itself held that the temple does not fall under that Act, there is no non-compliance. The assessee relied on the order dated 17.04.1984 of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, which stated that the temple is not a public place under the RPT Act and its registration is not required. The assessee contended that the CIT(E) dismissed this order without assigning reasons. The assessee also relied on APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust v. CIT (Exemption) to argue that registration under the RPT Act is not essential for registration under section 12A(1)(ac). Revenue's contentions: The revenue supported the impugned order, arguing that section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) mandates compliance with applicable laws, and section 17(1) of the RPT Act is mandatory. The revenue relied on the Supreme Court judgment in New Noble Educational Society and the Jaipur Bench ITAT decisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

All 669 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →