SHREE JAIN SWETAMBER TERAPANTHI SABHA,CHURU vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(E)”] dated 31.01.2026 passed under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), rejecting the application of the Assessee in Form No. 10AB for registration under section 12AB of the Act.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessee, a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 27.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The learned CIT(E) rejected the application on two grounds. First, clause (iii) applies only to a provisionally registered entity, whereas the Assessee held registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act granted on 10.03.2022 on the basis of its earlier registration dated 25.09.1990. The application was therefore held to be infructuous and not maintainable for having been filed under a wrong clause. Second, the Assessee was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the RPT Act”), having applied for such registration only on 18.12.2025.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (hereinafter referred to as “the learned AR”) placed on record the order in Form No. 107 dated 24.09.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E), Jaipur. By this order, the Assessee has been granted registration under section 332(7)(a) of the

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The order dated 24.09.2026 records, in Part G, that the Assessee furnished an application on 19.07.2026 for condonation of delay in filing the application for registration, and that the delay was condoned. It further records that the registration is granted subject to the condition that the Assessee obtains and submits the certificate of registration under the RPT Act on or before 30.06.2027. Thus, the very relief which the Assessee seeks in this appeal, namely registration, has since been granted by the learned CIT(E), and on terms that take note of the pending application under the RPT Act.

The only grievance of the Assessee in Ground No. 1 is the refusal of registration. That grievance no longer survives. A dispute that has ceased to exist calls for no adjudication, and any finding by us on whether the application was filed under the correct clause, or on whether registration under the RPT Act is a precondition for registration under section 12AB of the Act, would be purely academic. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any view on either question, and both are left open. Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

Ground No. 2 is general in nature and calls for no adjudication. In Ground No. 3, the Assessee has prayed for costs. No case for award of costs has been made out, and Ground No. 3 is dismissed.