SHRI BANSHIDHAR GAUSHALA SEVA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1118/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 October 2026AY 2025-265 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G were not sustainable in law. The reasoning was that the CIT(E) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to produce requisite documents. The deficiency letter was issued with a very short compliance period, and an adjournment request was denied, leading to a decision without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions. This failure to provide an adequate opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E). The direction was to grant registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G upon rectification of the application in Form 10AB and production of the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Banshidhar Gaushala Seva Samiti, filed applications in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)), rejected these applications. The grounds for rejection were an incomplete Form 10AB and the absence of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee appealed these orders to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur. The ITAT noted that the CIT(E) issued a deficiency letter on January 26, 2026, giving only four days for compliance, with the next date fixed as January 30, 2026. An adjournment request was denied, and the applications were decided on the same day. The assessee later submitted proof of applying for Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the cancellation/refusal of registration under Section 12AB of the Act by the CIT(E) was bad in law and on facts for want of jurisdiction and other reasons. 2. Whether the cancellation/refusal of approval under Section 80G of the Act by the CIT(E) was bad in law and on facts for want of jurisdiction and other reasons. 3. Whether the proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) without issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN), violating principles of natural justice. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the impugned orders were bad in law and facts for want of jurisdiction. They contended that the CIT(E) erred in cancelling/refusing registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. A key argument was that the proceedings were completed without issuing a Show Cause Notice, violating principles of natural justice and the procedure of law. The assessee also stated they had applied for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and requested an opportunity to produce it. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that the Revenue was represented by the CIT, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 80G,Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER ITA No: 1118 & 1160/JPR/2026

Shri Banshidhar Exemption, Gaushala Seva Samiti Ward1, Vs Manohar Lal Sharma Jaipur. (Respondent) Ajabpura, Piprali Dataramgarh. Sikar. PAN: AAKAS9950L (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Sh. Devang Gargieya, Adv. Revenue Represented: Sh. Ananad Swaroop, CIT Date of hearing : 07-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 22-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Shri Banshidhar Gaushala Seva Samiti by filing aforesaid interconnected appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 22.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the grounds inter-alia that:- ITA No. 1118/JPR/2026

I.T.A No. 1118 & 1160/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Shri Banshidhar Gaushala Seva Samiti

“1. The impugned order dt. 22.02.2026 of the Act is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence, the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The Id. CIT (E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in cancelling/refusing the registration u/s 12AB of the Act. The cancellation/refusal of the registration by the ld. CIT (E) is bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 3. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in completing the impugned proceedings without issuing any show cause notice (SCN). The non- issuance of SCN is against the procedure of law and the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the entire proceedings deserves to be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

ITA No. 1160/JPR/2026 “1. The impugned order dated 22.02.2026 of the Act is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence, the same kindly be quashed. 2. The Id. CIT (Exemption) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in cancelling/refusing, the registration under S. 80G of the Act. The cancellation/refusal of the registration by the ld. CIT (Exemption) is bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 3. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in completing the impugned proceedings without issuing any show cause notice (SCN). The non- issuance of SCN is against the procedure of law and the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the entire proceedings deserves to be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

2.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : Applications moved by the appellant in Form No. 10AB, seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

I.T.A No. 1118 & 1160/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Shri Banshidhar Gaushala Seva Samiti

referred to as the “Act”) were rejected on the grounds of incomplete Form 10AB and non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust 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 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 1 goes to show that on 26.01.2026, Ld. CIT(E) issued a deficiency letter to the appellant giving 4 days time by fixing 30.01.2026 as next date, on which date, the appellant moved an application for adjournment, which was not granted rather proceeded to decide the application seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval u/s 80G of the Act on grounds of incomplete Form 10AB and non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 ( in short RPT Act, 1959). It is proved that adequate opportunity has not been given to the appellant to produce requisite documents and as such impugned order passed by quashi judicial authority fails to pass the test of principles of natural justice as

I.T.A No. 1118 & 1160/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Shri Banshidhar Gaushala Seva Samiti

such not sustainable in the eyes of law and consequently, liable to be set aside. Now the appellant has brought on record letter dated 12.02.2026, which shows that the appellant has applied for registration under RPT Act, 1959. The ld. AR for the appellant stated that registration is about to be granted shortly and the appellant may be given one more opportunity to produce registration under RPT Act, 1959 before the Ld. CIT(E). 6. In view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application of the appellant seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval u/s 80G of the Act is hereby set aside and remanded the same back to grant the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval u/s 80G of the Act on rectification of application in Form 10AB and on producing registration under RPT Act, 1959 in accordance with the rules. 7. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-10-2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 22/10/2026.

I.T.A No. 1118 & 1160/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Shri Banshidhar Gaushala Seva Samiti

*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,

Asst. Registrar

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 →