MOINEE FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 792/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 October 20265 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E)'s satisfaction regarding the objects and genuineness of the Assessee's activities must be based on a proper examination of the record, which had not occurred. The Tribunal noted that while the Assessee uploaded documents on 14.03.2026, the impugned order did not discuss them, stating the reply remained deficient and the case was decided due to approaching limitation. The order also relied on verification reports and newspaper cuttings without recording that these were put to the Assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside both impugned orders and restored the applications to the file of the learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision. The learned CIT(E) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, call for further information, conduct necessary verification, and confront the Assessee with adverse material. The Assessee was directed to cooperate. The application under section 80G was to be decided after or along with the section 12AB application. The Tribunal made no observation on the merits of the documents or the Assessee's activities.

What were the facts?

The Assessee, Moinee Foundation, a trust holding provisional registration under section 12AB, filed applications in Form No. 10AB for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO), the learned CIT(E), Jaipur, issued notices seeking documents and explanations. The Assessee filed several replies. However, the AO rejected both applications by orders dated 26.03.2026, citing incomplete replies, lack of project-wise expenditure details, bills, vouchers, beneficiary details, and insufficient evidence for a Robotics Lab Programme. The AO also relied on spot verification reports that did not support the claimed activities and stated that the genuineness of activities was not established. The Assessee appealed these orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by not properly appreciating the facts and material on record, rendering the decision arbitrary and based on surmises, assumptions, and presumptions? 2. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on similar grounds? Assessee's Contentions: The Assessee argued that it responded to every notice, and the second notice provided insufficient time. It claimed that documents submitted on 14.03.2026, including bank statements and bills, were not examined by the AO. The Assessee also contended that verification reports were used without being presented to it. The Assessee prayed for registration and approval or, alternatively, for the matter to be restored to the AO. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue supported the AO's orders, asserting that adequate opportunity was given and the Assessee's replies remained deficient regarding the genuineness of activities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prakash

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Prakash, Accountant Member

ITA Nos: 791 & 792/JPR/2026

Moinee Foundation CIT Exemption, 1 KA 17, Housing Board, Jaipur (Respondent) Shastri Nagar 302016, Vs Rajasthan PAN: AADTM1727B (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA Revenue Represented: Sh. Ananad Swaroop, CIT Date of hearing : 07-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 27-10-2026 आदेश/ORDER

PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against two orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as "the learned CIT(E)"], both dated 26.03.2026, rejecting its applications in Form No. 10AB for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and for approval under section 80G of the Act. As the second order rests on the first and the facts are common, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order.

ITA Nos. 791 & 792/JPR/2026 Moinee Foundation 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee in ITA No. 791/JPR/2026 in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under:

"1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur, has erred in rejecting the application u/s 12AB of the income tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the facts and material placed on records, the same is arbitrary, being based on surmises, assumptions and presumptions. Kindly direct to grant to registration. 2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them."

The grounds raised in ITA No. 792/JPR/2026 are identical in substance, except that they relate to the rejection of the application for approval under section 80G of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessee is a trust holding provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act. On 29.09.2025, it filed two applications in Form No. 10AB, one for registration under section 12AB of the Act and the other for approval under section 80G of the Act. The learned CIT(E) issued a notice dated 13.01.2026 calling for documents and explanations by 28.01.2026, and a further notice dated 05.03.2026 calling for documents by 09.03.2026. The Assessee filed replies on 28.01.2026, 11.02.2026, 09.03.2026 and 14.03.2026. The learned CIT(E) held that the replies were incomplete, that the bank statement of only one account was furnished, that project wise expenditure details, bills, vouchers and beneficiary details were not furnished, that the photographs and newspaper cuttings relating to a Robotics Lab Programme of Rs 87,50,000 did not establish the involvement of the Assessee, and that spot verification by the Inspectors at Jaipur and Udaipur did not support the activities claimed. Holding that the genuineness of the activities was not established, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application under section 12AB

ITA Nos. 791 & 792/JPR/2026 Moinee Foundation of the Act and, as a consequence, the application under section 80G of the Act.

4.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (hereinafter referred to as "the learned AR") filed a paper book of 55 pages containing the notices, the replies and the e-proceedings acknowledgements, all of which were before the learned CIT(E). The learned AR submitted that the Assessee responded to every notice, that the second notice allowed only four days, and that the reply dated 14.03.2026 enclosed the very documents which the impugned order says were not furnished, namely the bank statement, work orders, completion reports, bills, vouchers and closure reports. These documents were not examined, and the verification reports of the Inspectors were used without being put to the Assessee. The learned AR prayed for a direction to grant registration and approval or, in the alternative, for restoration of the matter to the learned CIT(E).

5.

The learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as "the learned DR") supported the orders of the learned CIT(E) and submitted that adequate opportunity was given and the replies remained deficient on the points which go to the genuineness of the activities.

6.

We have heard both sides and perused the material on record. The acknowledgements in the paper book show that the notice dated 13.01.2026 was replied to on 28.01.2026 (in three parts, with Enclosures 1 to 21) and 11.02.2026, and the notice dated 05.03.2026 was replied to on 09.03.2026 (in two parts) and 14.03.2026 (in two parts). The impugned order under section 12AB of the Act records that the reply dated 14.03.2026 was received and that in it the Assessee sought time to compile bills, vouchers and bank statements. The acknowledgements at pages 52 to 55 of the paper book show that on the same date the Assessee uploaded, in

ITA Nos. 791 & 792/JPR/2026 Moinee Foundation two parts, documents described as bank statement, work orders, completion reports, bills and photographs, travel vouchers, closure reports and supporting evidences. The impugned order does not discuss these documents. It records only that the reply "remained substantially deficient" and that "since the matter is approaching limitation, the case is being decided based on material available on record." The order also rests on the verification reports of the Inspectors and on the inference drawn from the newspaper cuttings, but it does not record that either was put to the Assessee before being used against it. We make no observation on the contents or sufficiency of the documents filed, which is a matter for the learned CIT(E).

7.

The satisfaction about the objects and the genuineness of the activities is required by the learned CIT(E), and it must be reached on an examination of the record, which has not yet taken place. The proper course, consistent with the view taken by this Bench in similar matters, is to restore the applications for a fresh decision.

8.

Accordingly, we set aside both the impugned orders dated 26.03.2026 and restore the applications in Form No. 10AB for registration under section 12AB of the Act and for approval under section 80G of the Act to the file of the learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The learned CIT(E) shall be free to call for any further information, to carry out such verification as is considered necessary and to confront the Assessee with any adverse material before relying on it. The Assessee shall furnish the documents called for and cooperate without seeking unnecessary adjournment. The application under section 80G of the Act shall be decided after, or along with, the application under section 12AB of the Act. With the rejection set aside, the observation in the impugned order 4

ITA Nos. 791 & 792/JPR/2026 Moinee Foundation regarding initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the provisional registration also does not survive. Nothing stated herein is an expression of opinion on the merits. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (PRAKASH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 27/10/2026 *Ganesh Kr., Sr. PS आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue Ganesh Digitally signed by 3. Concerned CIT Ganesh Kumar 4. CIT (A) Kumar Date: 2026.11.02 5. DR, ITAT 10:35:36 +05'30' 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, t;iqj

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →