KOGTA FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 1095/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 October 2026AY 2026-2713 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the evidence now produced by the Assessee, including vouchers, beneficiary lists, and third-party letters, which were not before the CIT(E), goes to the root of the matter and is required for a proper decision. While the Tribunal admitted this evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, it noted that it cannot be the first authority to examine and verify such primary evidence. The Tribunal found that the Assessee's reliance on cited precedents was distinguishable as the primary evidence was not produced before the lower authorities. Consequently, for the first application (ITA No. 1095/JPR/2026), the impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on the genuineness of activities, with the Tribunal's findings on trust objects and donation sources binding the CIT(E). For the second application (ITA No. 1228/JPR/2026), the Tribunal noted that the foundation of its rejection (the rejection of the first application) had ceased to exist, and thus, this application was also restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the genuineness of activities or the evidence now produced.

What were the facts?

The Assessee, Kogta Foundation, filed two applications in Form No. 10AB for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first application, under sub-clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac), was rejected by the CIT(E) on 06.03.2026 for reasons including failure to produce bills/vouchers, unverifiable road safety expenditure, activities beyond trust objects, related party funding, and absence of verifiable beneficiary details. The second application, filed on 29.09.2025 under sub-clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac), was rejected by the CIT(E) on the same date, deeming it deficient as the Assessee was not already registered under sub-clause (i) or (iii). The Assessee's prior application for provisional registration had been granted on 28.05.2021. The Tribunal heard both appeals together.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the Assessee's application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, based on alleged failure to produce documentary evidence, unverifiable expenditure, activities beyond trust objects, related party funding, and lack of beneficiary details? The Assessee contended that it is a genuine charitable trust, and the rejection order was based on wrong grounds, with all necessary documents now placed before the Tribunal. The Revenue did not record specific arguments in the judgment. 2. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the Assessee's application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, on the ground that the Assessee was not registered under sub-clause (i) or (iii) and its application under sub-clause (iii) was rejected? The Assessee argued that it held valid provisional registration and was eligible to apply under sub-clause (ii), and the rejection order was non-speaking and violative of natural justice. The Revenue did not record specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1),Section 12A(1)(ac),Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prakash

PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 06.03.2026, passed in Form No. 10AD by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as "the learned CIT(E)"] under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), rejecting two applications of the Assessee in Form No. 10AB for registration. Since the appeals arise from the same set of facts and the outcome of the second appeal depends upon the first, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common

ITA Nos. 1095 & 1228/JPR/2026 Kogta Foundation order for the sake of convenie

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 →