SRSL CHARITABLE TRUST,UDAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 55/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 September 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(E) had recorded that notices were served, but the appellant denied the service of summons. To ensure the cause of justice, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to one more opportunity to be heard on merits. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had also filed its registration issued under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) was set aside. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the matter afresh, providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, SRSL Charitable Trust, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) had rejected the Trust's application for renewal of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on grounds of non-prosecution, failure to furnish necessary details, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and non-genuineness of activities. The Trust argued that it had not received any notices from the CIT(E) and was ready to appear and comply with the requirements. The Trust also submitted its registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the application for renewal of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and facts, violating principles of natural justice and jurisdiction. 2. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration/approval under Section 12AA of the Act. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the impugned order was bad in law and facts, passed without providing an adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard, and was without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and in violation of natural justice. The assessee argued that it had not received any notices from the CIT(E) and was ready to appear before the authority on any date fixed, requesting one more opportunity. The assessee also stated that it had previously been granted registration under Section 12AA based on similar facts, and no change had occurred, making the rejection a mere change of opinion. The assessee also submitted its registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through the CIT(E), rejected the application on grounds of non-prosecution, non-furnishing of necessary details, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and non-genuineness of activities and non-compliance under clause (i) of 12A(1)(ac). The CIT(E) noted that three opportunities were given with gaps of 12-13 days, but the appellant did not respond.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12AA,Section 12AB

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “B” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER ITA No: 55/JPR/2026

SRSL Charitable Trust The CIT (Exemption) SRSL House, Bhuwana Jaipur. Vs (Respondent) Road, Pulla, Udaipur. PAN: AAATS3819F (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh.P.C.Parwal, FCA. Revenue Represented: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT Date of hearing : 23-09-2026 Date of pronouncement : 29-09-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellants, SRSL Charitable Trust by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. The Impugned order u/s 12ABof the Act dated 25/11/2025 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction, barred by limitation and for various other reasons illegal, bad in law, glaring violation of natural justice and hence the same may kindly be quashed.

I.T.A No.55/JPR/2026 Page No 2 SRSL Charitable Trust

2.

The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the Application No. CIT Exemption, Jaipur/2025-26/12AA/10877 for granting Registration/approval u/s 12AA. The rejection so made and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s 12AAis contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. The same kindly may be quashed. 3. That the impugned order so passed was in the contravention of 3 the law prevalent at the relevant point of time and also on fact and hence may kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant trust has already been granted registration/approval u/s 12AA based on same facts and circumstances and no facts OR circumstances have been changed since then in the working of the appellant trust and thus rejecting the application for renewal is nothing but merely a change of opinion and hence the impugned order may kindly be quashed. 5. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend OR 5 alter of OR any of the grounds of the appeal on OR before the date of hearing.”

2.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : Appellant’s application moved in Form No. 10AB, seeking renewal of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was dismissed on ground of non prosecution, non furnishing of necessary details as well as on ground of non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and non genuineness of activities & non compliance under clause (i) of 12A(1)(ac).

I.T.A No.55/JPR/2026 Page No 3 SRSL Charitable Trust

3.

Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E), appellant has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) goes to prove that 3 opportunities are shown to have been given with a gap of 12 to 13 days, but on behalf of the appellant none reported to have responded by making compliance to the questionnaire issued by Ld. CIT(E). Ld. AR for the appellant challenging the impugned order contended that no notice has ever been served upon the appellant and the appellant trust is ready to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) on each and every date fixed and requested for one more opportunity. 6. No doubt Ld. CIT(E) has recorded that notices were served, but on the other hand the appellant denying the service of summons. Be that as it may, to substantiate the cause of justice, the appellant is entitled for one more opportunity to be heard on merits. The appellant has also filed registration issued under RPT Act, 1959.

I.T.A No.55/JPR/2026 Page No 4 SRSL Charitable Trust

7.

In these circumstances, impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E) is set aside to be decided afresh by Ld. CIT(E) by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 8. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29-09-2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 29/09/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

All 679 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →