AKHIL BHARAT VARSHIYA SHREE KHANDAL VIPRA MAHASABHA,PUSHKAR AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 613/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 October 20269 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the common thread in the CIT(E)'s rejection was the assessee's silence. The finding on genuineness was based on the inability to determine it due to lack of documents, not on any adverse material. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's failure to respond was due to an inoperative email address, a curable defect. While the assessee was not without blame for not keeping contact details current, a rejection based on a curable default without examining actual material was disproportionate. The Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB and restored it to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide necessary documents. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the three reasons for rejection, leaving the issue of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act open for the CIT(E) to decide based on future material. Regarding the Section 80G application, since its rejection was solely based on the Section 12AB rejection, and that order was set aside, the foundation for the second order no longer survived. The Section 80G application was also restored to the CIT(E) to be decided afresh after the Section 12AB application is decided. The Tribunal also clarified that the CIT(E)'s observation regarding the admissibility of appeals under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act was beyond his authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Akil Bharat Varshiya Shree Khandal Vipra Mahasabha, filed applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on September 27, 2025. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)), rejected both applications on January 19, 2026. The rejection was based on the assessee's failure to respond to notices issued by the CIT(E) on November 11, 2025, and December 17, 2025. The specific grounds for rejection included an incomplete Form 10AB, lack of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and unproven genuineness of activities. The assessee appealed these orders to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that Form 10AB was incomplete, the assessee was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and the genuineness of its activities was not proved (Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) and Section 12AB). 2. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the basis that registration under Section 12AB was a prerequisite, without independent consideration (Section 80G(5)). Assessee's Contentions: - The communications from the CIT(E) were sent to an inoperative email address due to a technical default, leading to non-receipt. - The missing documents were available in the paper book, and Form 10AB cannot be uploaded without mandatory fields being filled. - Registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act is not a condition for Section 12AB registration, citing Jaipur Bench orders in Dhapi Devi Tormal Seva Samiti, Shriram Paropkari Trust, and APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust. - There is no adverse material regarding the genuineness of activities, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, and Jaipur Bench orders in Icon Foundation and Setu Santhan. - Approval under Section 80G requires independent satisfaction and should not be refused mechanically, citing Shrimad Dayanand Shiksha Samiti. - The assessee sought one more opportunity or restoration of the matters to the CIT(E). Revenue's Contentions: - The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the learned CIT(E).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi),Section 12AB,Section 80G(5),Section 253,Section 29,Section 10(23C)

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 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(E)”], both dated 19.01.2026 and passed in Form No. 10AD. By the first order, which is the subject matter of ITA No. 613/JPR/2026, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee in Form No. 10AB, made under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for registration under section 12AB of the Act. By the second order, which is the subject matter of ITA No. 614/JPR/2026, the learned CIT(E) rejected the appl

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)(vi)

All 429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →