R K SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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 09.03.2026, passed in Form No. 10AD under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By the first order, the application of the Assessee in Form No. 10AB dated 30.09.2025 for registration under sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub section (1) of section 12A of the Act was rejected. By the second order, the application in Form No. 10AB dated 27.11.2025 for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act was rejected as a consequence

The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee in ITA No. 689/JPR/2026 in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under:

The grounds of appeal raised in ITA No. 974/JPR/2026 read as under:

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the earlier applications of the Assessee, a society holding provisional registration and approval, were rejected by the learned CIT(E) on 30.11.2023 for non registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and non genuineness of activities. According to the impugned orders, the appeals against those orders were dismissed by this Tribunal on 06.02.2024 in ITA Nos. 777 and 778/JPR/2023 as the Assessee was not interested in pursuing the regularisation of its provisional registration. The Assessee then filed the present applications on 30.09.2025 and 27.11.2025.

In reply to the notice dated 28.02.2026, the Assessee stated on 05.03.2026 that the invoices for F.Y. 2019-20 and 2020-21 were lost in thefts, enclosed FIRs, furnished the major invoices for F.Y. 2021-22 and the ledger of leadership development expenses, and explained that its activity reports covered projects spanning more than one year while its accounts recorded expenditure year wise. The learned CIT(E) held that the earlier rejection had attained finality, that the FIRs did not mention theft of records, that the other ledgers, beneficiary details and bills for three of the six payments listed for F.Y. 2021-22 were not furnished, and that the project expenditure did not match the accounts, as under:

The application for registration was accordingly rejected for "Non Genuineness of Activities", with an observation that cancellation of the provisional registration would be initiated separately. The application for approval under section 80G of the Act was rejected as a consequence.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (hereinafter referred to as "the learned AR") reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the fresh applications had to be examined on their own merits and that the Assessee was denied an opportunity to place on record its activities of the last five years. The learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as "the learned DR") relied on the impugned orders.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Nothing in section 12A or section 12AB of the Act bars a fresh application after an earlier one has been rejected. The order of the Tribunal dated 06.02.2024, as described by the learned CIT(E) himself, did not examine the genuineness of the activities but proceeded on the footing that the Assessee was not pursuing the earlier application. Such a dismissal settles the fate of that application; it does not settle, for all time, the facts on which it was based. To that extent, the impugned order proceeds on a wrong premise. 4

On genuineness, the findings of the learned CIT(E) are unresolved queries rather than conclusions. The explanation of the difference between the activity reports and the accounts can be tested against the ledgers, and the missing ledgers, beneficiary details and bills are deficiencies capable of being cured. Equally, it is for the applicant to satisfy the learned CIT(E) under section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act, and the Assessee cannot complain of want of opportunity while leaving the record incomplete. The enquiry was compressed into a few days before the limitation under section 12AB(3) of the Act expired, and neither side had a fair occasion to complete it.

We therefore set aside the impugned order and restore the application dated 30.09.2025 to the file of the learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with law after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The learned CIT(E) shall have a free hand to examine every aspect of the application, including registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, on which we express no opinion. The Assessee shall produce the ledgers, bills, beneficiary details and the reconciliation of project expenditure, and shall cooperate. The observation regarding cancellation of the provisional registration does not survive.

As the order rejecting the application for approval under section 80G of the Act rests solely on the rejection of the application for registration, it is also set aside, and the application dated 27.11.2025 is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) to be decided afresh along with, or after, the application for registration. The grounds of appeal in both the appeals are allowed to this extent.