MANAV CHETNA JAGRITI PRANYAS,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application without recording any adverse finding that the objects of the appellant are not charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or that the activities of the appellant are non-genuine, bogus, sham or not being carried out in accordance with its stated objects.

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application solely on the ground of non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, without appreciating that the said issue is procedural in nature and cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive ground for denial of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in invoking the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a mechanical manner, without appreciating that compliance of any other law can be examined only to the extent such compliance is material for achieving the objects of the trust or institution, and without establishing that non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 had any adverse or material bearing on the achievement of the charitable objects of the appellant.

The Ld. CIT (E) has failed to appreciate that even assuming registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was required, the same was a curable procedural compliance. The application ought not to have been rejected without granting reasonable and effective opportunity to the appellant to furnish proof of application/registration before the Devasthan Department.

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in passing the impugned order without granting reasonable and adequate opportunity to the appellant. The deficiency letter dated 18.01.2026 required compliance by 23.01.2026, thereby granting a very short time to comply with an issue relating to registration under another statute. The impugned order is therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Ld. CIT(E) has failed to consider that there is no allegation of misuse of funds, diversion of income, violation of objects, personal benefit to trustees, or carrying on of any non-charitable activity by the appellant. Therefore, rejection of registration merely on technical ground is unjustified and contrary to law.

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in placing reliance on judicial precedents without appreciating the factual matrix of the appellant's case and without establishing that the appellant has failed to comply with the essential conditions for grant of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in passing a harsh and premature order of rejection instead of granting reasonable time to the appellant to complete procedural compliance under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 or to furnish further explanation in that regard.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application filed in Form No. 10AB seeking approval under section 80G(5)(ii) merely on the ground that the application for registration under section 12AB was rejected, without independently examining the eligibility of the appellant for approval under section 80G.

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application under section 80G(5)(ii) merely on the ground that the application of the appellant for registration under section 12A/12AB was rejected vide separate order ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-dated 12.03.2026 bearing DIN

The Ld. CIT (E) has erred in rejecting approval under section 80G solely on a derivative and consequential basis, without recording any independent adverse finding that the appellant is not carrying out charitable activities or that its activities are non-genuine, bogus, sham or contrary to its stated objects.

The Ld. CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that the nature of activities of the appellant has been recorded as "Charitable" in the impugned Form No. 10AD itself and, therefore, rejection of approval under section 80G without any adverse finding on charitable objects or genuineness of activities is unjustified.

The Ld. CIT (E) has erred in relying upon alleged non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 as the effective basis for rejecting approval urcer section 80G, without appreciating that such compliance, even if considered necessary, was procedural and curable in nature, and no reasonable and effective opportunity was granted to the appellant to complete such compliance or to furnish further explanation/evidence in support of its application.

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in observing that the appellant failed to furnish replies during the present proceedings, despite the impugned order itself recording that reply was submitted by the appellant and the same was examined but found not tenable.

The Ld. CIE) has failed to appreciate that there is no allegation of misuse of funds, diversion of income, violation of objects, personal benefit to trustees, or carrying on of any activity contrary to the provisions of section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in passing a harsh, mechanical and premature order of rejection instead of granting reasonable time to the appellant to comply with procedural requirements or to furnish further explanation in respect of the issue relating to registration under section 12AB and/or the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issue at hand are: Appellant’s applications filed in Form No. 10AB, seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) for want of non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (in short RPT Act, 1959). 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E), appellant has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 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 orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) particularly para 2 and 4 of the impugned orders go to show that the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act were declined because of non registration of the appellant trust under RPT Act, 1959.

Now the appellant has brought on record the documents viz application moved to Assistant Commissioner Devasthan Vibhag, Bikaner, notice issued by the ACIT, application moved by the appellant dated 19.07.2024 and notice published in the newspaper, which shows that the process for issuance of registration under RPT Act, 1959 is complete and registration is being issued. 7. In these circumstances appellant is required to be given one more opportunity to get the registration/approval u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act and as such the case is required to be remanded back to Ld. CIT(E) to decide afresh on production of RPT Act, 1959. 8. Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/10/2026.