SHRI RADHA GOVIND GOSHALA SAM,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 424/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 October 20268 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for registration under section 12AB was not justified. Regarding the first ground for rejection (incomplete documentation), the Tribunal noted that the omitted documents were mostly departmental records and the absence of a self-certified copy was a curable deficiency in presentation, not a substantive eligibility issue, citing Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha v. CIT (Exemption). Concerning the second ground (non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959), the Tribunal acknowledged that compliance with other laws is a relevant consideration under section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B), but the outright rejection of the application for such a deficiency, especially when it is being cured, requires case-specific consideration. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan v. Nand Lal, stating that Section 29 of the RPT Act bars hearing and deciding a suit, not the maintainability of an appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) had no authority to pronounce on the admissibility of an appeal against his own order. Furthermore, the impugned order was passed based on a single deficiency letter without a show cause notice, and a date mentioned for compliance preceded the letter itself. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the section 12AB application and restored it to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish documents and explanations. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits. For ITA No. 424/JPR/2026, the rejection of the 80G application was consequential to the 12AB rejection and thus could not independently survive. This application was also restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after or alongside the section 12AB proceedings. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Radha Govind Goshala Samiti, filed applications for renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in Form No. 10AB on September 27, 2025, and September 29, 2025, respectively. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)), rejected both applications by orders dated February 11, 2026. The grounds for rejection included the application being incomplete for not furnishing prior registration/approval orders and a note on activities, and the assessee not being registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959. The CIT(E) also noted that proceedings for cancellation of existing registration and approval would be initiated separately. The assessee appealed these rejections to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the learned CIT(E) was justified on the grounds of incomplete documentation and non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) and Rule 17A(2)(e)). Assessee's contentions: The rejection was unjustified as the omitted documents were largely available with the department. The deficiency was in the manner of presentation and curable. The assessee was given only one opportunity with a short notice. Revenue's contentions: The learned Departmental Representative relied on the impugned orders. 2. Whether the rejection of the application for approval under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified, given that it was based on the rejection of the section 12AB application? Assessee's contentions: Similar to the first ground, the rejection was unwarranted. Revenue's contentions: The learned Departmental Representative relied on the impugned orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G(5),Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 80G(5)(ii),Section 253(1)(c),Section 29

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR Before: Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Prakash, Accountant Member ITA Nos: 423 and 424/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: NA PAN: AABAS 2519 L (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Rajat Choudhary, Adv. Revenue Represented: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT Date of hearing : 23-09-2026 Date of pronouncement : 08-10-2026

PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against two orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as "the learned CIT(E)"], both dated 11.02.2026 and passed in Form No. 10AD under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By the order impugned in ITA No. 423/JPR/2026, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application of the Assessee for registration under section 12AB of the Act. By the order impugned in ITA No. 424/JPR/2026, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application of the Assessee for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. As the second order follows from the first, both the appeals were h

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 →