THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. RAJKOT JILLA GAYATRI PARIVAR TRUST
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal committed no error of law in passing the impugned order. The Court found that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad Vs. Lok Sewa Sansthan Samiti Sonebhadra ([2019] 105 taxmann.com 203 (SC)). The Court noted that it was not in dispute that the respondent-assessee was registered as a Charitable Institution under Section 12A of the Act. As a natural corollary, the application under Section 80G(5) of the Act would also be liable to be allowed. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The ITAT's reasoning, which relied on the lack of specific instances of religious activities by the CIT and the principle of consistency based on prior approvals, was implicitly upheld.
What were the facts?
This is a tax appeal filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench. The ITAT had allowed the approval of the assessee-trust, Rajkot Jilla Gayatri Parivar Trust, under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's appeal challenges the ITAT's decision on two grounds. The procedural history involves the ITAT's order dated March 11, 2019, in ITA No. 52/RJT/2016, which is now under challenge before the High Court. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the approval under Section 80G of the Act without appreciating that the assessee-trust has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Explanation 3 to Section 80G(5) of the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, instead of restoring the matter to the CIT for examining the activities of the assessee, was the Appellate Tribunal justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by observing that the Ld. CIT has not brought any specific instances suggesting that the activities of the assessee are religious in nature, particularly when most of the objects are apparently religious? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The ITAT held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) had not brought any specific instances to suggest that the assessee's activities were religious in nature. Furthermore, the assessee had been receiving registration under Section 80G(5) from 1993 to March 31, 2006, for the same activities, with no change in its objects and activities. The ITAT relied on the principle of consistency, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang (193 ITR 321). Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the assessee-trust had not fulfilled the condition laid down in Explanation 3 to Section 80G(5) of the Act, which states that 'charitable purpose' does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. The Revenue also contended that the matter should have been restored to the CIT for further examination of the assessee's activities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
This tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act, 1961'] is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot dated 11/03/2019 in the ITA No.52/RJT/2016. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court: [A] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the approval u/s.80G of the Act without appreciating that the assesseetrust has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Explanation 3 to section 80G(5) of the Act? [B] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, instead of restoring the matter to the CIT for examining the activities of the assessee, was Appellate Tribunal justified in allowing the appeal of assessee by observing that Ld. CIT has not brought any C/TAXAP/531/2019 ORDER specific instances suggesting that the activities of the assessee are religious in nature particularly when most of the objects are apparently religious?
The appellate tribunal while passing the impugned order observed as under:
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At this juncture we find important to refer the provisions as contained under explanation 3 to section 80G(5) of the Act which is reproduced as under: “Charitable purpose” does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature.”
1 As per the above provision, the assessee cannot get the benefit of registration under section 80G(5) of the Act if it's activities wholly or substantially the wholly are of religious nature. However, in this regard, we note that the Ld. CIT has not brought any specific instances suggesting that the activities of the assessee are religious in nature.
2 Besides the above, we also note that the assessee has been getting the registration under section 80G(5) of the Act right from the year 1993 to the year 31st March 2006 on the same kind of activities. It is also an undisputed fact that there was no change in the objects and the activities of the trust. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves the registration under section 80G(5) of the Act as per the rule of consistency in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang reported in 193 ITR 321 wherein it was held as under:
“13. We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to incometax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year.
On these reasonings in the absence of any material change justifying the revenue to take a different view of the matter – and if there was no change it was in support of the assessee – we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what has been decided by the Commissioner in the earlier C/TAXAP/531/2019 ORDER proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken. We are, therefore, of the view that these appeals should be allowed and the question should be answered in the affirmative, namely, that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income derived by the Radhasoami Satsang was entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12.”
In view of the above, we reverse the order of Ld. CIT and direct him to grant the registration certificate under section 80G of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
We are of the view that the appellate tribunal committed no error not to speak of any error of law in passing the impugned order. The issue is now squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Incometax, Allahabad Vs. Lok Sewa Sansthan Samiti Sonebhadra reported in [2019] 105 taxmann.com 203 (SC). It is not in dispute that the respondent – assessee stands registered as a Charitable Institution under Section 12A of the Act. In such circumstances, as a natural corollary, the application under Section 80G(5) of the Act would also be liable to be allowed.
In view of the aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) aruna
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026