SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1326/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 October 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. The matter was remanded back to the learned CIT(E) to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The reasoning was that the appellant had subsequently applied for registration under the RPT Act, 1959, vide an application dated 31.03.2026, which was under process. Since the appellant had applied for this registration, it was entitled to one more opportunity to get its case decided on merits. Therefore, the matter was required to be placed before the CIT(E) to consider the issuance of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act under the rules. The ratio decidendi is that a pending application for a statutory registration, if filed before or around the time of the impugned order, should be considered, and the assessee should be granted an opportunity to complete the formalities, rather than outright rejection of the 12AB registration application.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Digamber Jain Mandir, filed an appeal challenging an order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the assessee's failure to obtain registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (RPT Act). The assessee contended that the RPT Act registration is a procedural requirement and its pendency should not be the sole ground for rejection, especially when their objects and activities are genuine and compliant with Section 12AB(1)(b). The assessee had applied for RPT Act registration on 31.03.2026, prior to or around the date of the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB solely on the ground of non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is legally sustainable, especially when the assessee had applied for such registration prior to the impugned order? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: - Registration under the RPT Act is a procedural requirement and its pendency cannot be the sole ground for rejecting 12AB registration if the objects and activities are genuine and compliant with Section 12AB(1)(b). - The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act without appreciating that the appellant had already applied for it on 31.03.2026. - The CIT(E) failed to consider the subsequent compliance and acted in haste, ignoring the principles of natural justice and the genuineness of the trust's activities. - Relied on several ITAT benches that have set aside similar rejections and remanded matters for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records that the appellant trust failed to furnish any reply and evidence regarding the RPT Act, 1959 application, if any, despite notices issued by the CIT(E).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:1326/JPR/2026

Shri Digamber Jain Mandir The CIT Sector No. 7, Jawahar Nagar, (Exemption), Vs Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN: AACTS3676G (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Shrawan Kr. Gupta, Adv. Revenue Represented: Sh. Anand Swaroop, CIT Date of hearing : 13-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 22-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Shri Digamber Jain Mandir by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. That registration under RPT Act is a procedural requirement and its pendency/application cannot be the sole ground for rejection of 12AB registration, especially when the objects and activities are genuine and in compliance with Section 12AB(1)(b). Several ITAT benches have set aside similar rejections and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

I.T.A No. 1326/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Shri Digamber Jain Mandir

2.

That the impugned order is bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice, and deserves to be quashed.

3.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB solely on the ground of non-registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, without appreciating that the appellant had already applied for registration under the RPT Act on 31.03.2026 (prior to or around the time of the order).

4.

That the Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur failed to consider the subsequent compliance by the appellant and acted in haste, ignoring the mandatory opportunity of being heard and the genuineness of the religious-cum-charitable activities of the temple trust.

5.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, or delete any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

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) for want of non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (in short RPT Act,1959). 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.

I.T.A No. 1326/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Shri Digamber Jain Mandir

5.

Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) goes to prove that the appellant trust has failed to furnish any reply and evidence regarding RPT Act, 1959 application filed, if any, despite notices issued to it. Consequently Ld. CIT(E) proceeded to reject the application on account of non registration under RPT Act, 1959. 6. Now the appellant has come up with evidence that it has already moved an application for getting registration under RPT Act, 1959 vide application dated 31.03.2026, which is under process and certificate is being issued in due course. Since the appellant has applied for registration under RPT Act, 1959, it is entitled for one more opportunity to get its case decided on merits and as such matter is required to be put up before the Ld. CIT(E) to consider the issuance of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Ac under rules. 7. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed for statistical purpose by remanding it back to Ld. CIT(E) after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-10-2026.

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

I.T.A No. 1326/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Shri Digamber Jain Mandir

*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 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →