COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. PORWAL YUVAK SANGH KOTA,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JP:38150-DB22 September 2026Bench: SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, INDERJEET SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it did not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The Court noted that the ITAT had remanded the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for reconsideration of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat. The Court observed that the remand provided an opportunity for the Revenue to contest the application and for the CIT (Exemption) to consider it after hearing the assessee. Therefore, the High Court was not inclined to entertain the appeal and dismissed it. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and directed the CIT (Exemption) to consider the application strictly in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur, has filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for reconsideration. The assessee is Porwal Yuvak Sangh Kota. The ITAT's decision to remand was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain Vs. M/s. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat. The Revenue contended that the CIT (Exemption)'s order was in accordance with the law and should not have been remanded.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in remanding the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for reconsideration, when the order passed by the CIT (Exemption) was allegedly strictly in accordance with law? (Question of law) The Revenue argued that the matter should not have been remanded as the CIT (Exemption)'s order was legally sound. The Revenue contended that the ITAT's decision to remand was incorrect. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee's side regarding this issue. The ITAT's reasoning for remand was that the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act, in continuation of a previous application, ought to have been considered in light of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2026:RJ-JP:38150-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 1/2026 CNR: RJHC021126912025 | URN: ITA / 1U / 2026 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur-302001. ----Appellant Versus Porwal Yuvak Sangh Kota, 77-78 Porwal Bhawan, Vallabh Bari, Kota-324006(Pan No. Aaaap7068G). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Parth Vashisth HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 22/09/2026 1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) is directed against the order dated 20.12.2024, by which the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for reconsideration of the Assessee’s case in the light of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain Vs. M/s. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat (Civil Appeal No.2492/2014). 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the matter could not have been remanded to the CIT (Exemption), as the order passed by the CIT (Exemption) was strictly in accordance with the law. (Uploaded on 23/09/2026 at 06:38:55 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:20:45 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:38150-DB] (2 of 2) [ITA-1/2026] 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions and gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned order. 4. The ITAT after considering the submissions of the parties, has come to the conclusion that the application seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Act of 1961, in continuation of the earlier application, ought to have been considered in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat (supra) and in light of that, the matter has been remanded. 5. Since the matter has been remanded, where the Revenue will have an opportunity to contest the application and the CIT (Exemption) has to consider the application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. 6. We do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal to be heard and decided. 7. We are not inclined to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed without noticing to the other party. 8. However, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and directed the CIT (Exemption) to consider the application strictly in accordance with law. (INDERJEET SINGH),J (SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/7 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 23/09/2026 at 06:38:55 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:20:45 AM)

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →