SHRI MITRA GYAN SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1071/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 October 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) was not sustainable in the eyes of law. A bare perusal of the order indicated that the appellant was given only one opportunity to file a reply within four days, and the order was passed thereafter. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity to present documents and evidence to support its case. This lack of opportunity was considered a violation of the rule of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to decide the matter afresh after providing the appellant with an adequate opportunity of being heard. No specific finding was made on the merits of the grounds concerning violation of Section 13(1)(c) and the genuineness of activities, as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Mitra Gyan Shiksha Samiti, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, challenging an order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)), Jaipur. The CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application filed in Form No. 10AB for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on grounds of alleged violation of Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, specifically the siphoning of funds to specified persons under Section 13(1)(c), and failure to prove the genuineness of activities. The assessee contended that the application was rejected without adequate opportunity of being heard, with only one notice issued for basic documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on the grounds that substantial amounts were advanced to trustees, violating Section 13(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) of the Act, and that the genuineness of activities was not proved? Assessee's Contentions: - The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard, issuing only one notice for basic documents and not issuing further notices on the issues leading to denial. - The rejection was based on grounds that were not adequately addressed due to the lack of opportunity. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records that the Ld. DR for the Revenue was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12AB,Section 13(1)(c),Section 13(1)(d),Section 11(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ADDOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ADDOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 1071/JPR/2026

Shri Mitra Gyan The CIT (Exemption) Shiksha Samiti Jaipur. Vs (Respondent) Sector-09, Mandir Marg, Patel Marg Mansarover, Jaipur. PAN: AAEAS4510Q (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh.P. C. Parwal, C.A. Revenue Represented: Sh. Ananad Swaroop, CIT Date of hearing : 14-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 26-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellants, Shri Mitra Gyan Shiksha Samiti by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the ground that:- “1. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the application dt. 23.09.2025 filed by the assessee u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12Ab of IT Act, 1961 without providing opportunity of being heard in as much as only one notice was issued calling for basic documents

I.T.A No. 1071/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Shri Mitra Gyan Shiksha Samiti

and thereafter no further notice was issued on the issues on the basis of which registration u/s 12AB is denied. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the above application on the ground that:- (i) substantial amount have been advanced to the trustees thereby violating the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) of the Act and (ii) genuineness of activities has not been proved. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 4. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”

2.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : Appellant’s application moved in Form no. 10AB, seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on ground of violation of section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act siphoning of funds to specified persons covered u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E), appellant trust 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), particularly para 1 go to prove that the appellant has been given only one opportunity, that too to file the reply within 4 days, and proceeded to pass the impugned order. The appellant has not been given

I.T.A No. 1071/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Shri Mitra Gyan Shiksha Samiti adequate opportunity to bring on record documents/evidences to prove its case. 6. We are of the considered view that it is a case of non granting of any opportunity to the appellant, which is violation of rule of natural justice and it makes the impugned order not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence set aside. 7. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes to be decided afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. Order pronounced in the open court on 26-10-2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 26/10/2026. *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, SANTOSH Digitally signed by Asst. Registrar/Sr. P.S. SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR MAURYA Date: 2026.10.27 09:50:21 MAURYA +05'30'

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 →