RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY, SOCIETY , KOTA,KOTA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No.118 & 779/JPR/2025
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATR8150J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &

Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing

: 23/09/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 20/11/2025

vkns'k@ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

The present two appeals filed by assessee, are arising out of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur both dated 31.12.2024 & 03.04.2025 [ for short “CIT(E)”] passed for registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act [ for short Act ] respectively by the assessee - appellant.
Ram Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Kota.

activity. Therefore, the applicant claim of registration u/s 12AB is also liable to be rejected on ground of not proving its genuineness of activity.
04. In view of above discussion assessee's claim of registration section 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds:-
 Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.  Benefited to interested persons.
 Non-Genuineness of activities.
 Profitability
06. Further 12AB (1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfied has to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier registration. Thus, it is clarified that applicant's provisional registration under clause
(vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
dated 10.03.2022 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularisation of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also lapsed and cancelled.”

Against the above finding of the ld. CIT(E) the assessee has preferred the appeal No. ITA no. 118/JP/2025. 5. As is evident from para 6 of the finding of the ld. CIT(E) that the assessee filed an application for recognition u/s 80G of the Act but while considering the application he has considered that the application is for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. Having noted that fact ld. CIT(E) on 03.04.2025 passed an another order revising the para 6 as under :-
“Please refer to this office order. No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1071735774(1) dated 31.12.2024 wherein in last para (no. 6) of the order, some typographical mistake was occurred. The last para (no. 6) of the said order may kindly be read as under:-
"06. Further 2nd proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
also state that if CIT is not satisfied has to pass order rejecting such Ram Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Kota.

application and also cancelling its earlier approval. Thus, it is clarified that applicant's provisional approval under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10.03.2022
is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional approval, thus with this order provisional approval is also lapsed and cancelled."

Against the above finding of the ld. CIT(E) the assessee preferred the appeal no. 779/JP/2025. 6. Thus, as is evident from the above finding of the ld. CIT(E) that though the assessee has dealt with the recognition of the trust u/s. 80G of the Act firstly he rejected the same considering as if the same is filed for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and thereafter, having released that apparent error and another order was passed on 03.04.3035. Thus, effectively as is evident from the record the application for the recognition of the trust has not been dealt with and thereby the assessee has preferred the two appeals effectively challenging the order of the ld. CIT(E) on the issue of recognition of the trust as per provision of section 80G of the Act.
7. At the time of hearing of the present appeals the ld. AR of the assessee referring to page 190 of the paper book drawn our attention to the fact that the assessee is already registered vide order dated
24.09.2021 for assessment year 2022-23 to 2026-27.The ld. AR of the Ram Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Kota.

assessee thereby filed a detailed written submission to support the grounds raised in the present appeals;
“Brief General Facts: The ld. CIT (E) noted in the impugned order as under:
“The applicant filed an online application in Form No. 10AB seeking approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 26.06.2024. A letter/notice No.
ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2024-25/1066715571(1) dated 15.07.2024 was issued at the email/ address provided in the application requiring the applicant to submit certain documents/explanations by 01.08.2024, in compliance to which the applicant requested to adjourn its case. Thereafter, a reminder letter was issued to the applicant vide this office DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2024-
25/1069969799(1) dated 26.10.2024 to submit complete details/information by 05.11.2024. In compliance to thereof, the applicant had submitted a reply on 04.11.2024 which was thoroughly examined on record and found various discrepancies. These discrepancies were conveyed to the applicant vide show cause notice dated 08.12.2024 wherein date of hearing was given 12.12.2024. After giving notice, the applicant had submitted its reply on 12.12.2024 which was not found tenable. Reply furnished by the assessee has been examined and applicant not found eligible for the desired registration.”
Thereafter the Ld. CIT(E) continued to make discussion with reference to the application filed u/s 80G(5) of the Act.Continuing with the above, in the concluding Para 6 again, the Ld. CIT has cancelled the aforesaid Provisional Registration, also granted vide order dt. 10.03.2023 (PB-193). However, a perusal of the aforesaid order shows that it was an order granting Provisional Registration in Form 10AC under Rule 17A/11AA/2C, for the period from 10.03.2022 to 2024-25, granted under Section 80G(5) First Proviso clause(iv). Thus whereas, the appellant made an application before the CIT€ in Form
10AB seeking conversion of Provisional registration into Final Registration under Section 80G, filed on 26.06.2024. However, in response, the Registration and the Provisional Registration u/s 12A and 12 AB, etc. were rejected.
Finally, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the prayer(seemingly) for approval u/s 80G(5) filed through FORM 10B but in the following words:
“04. In view of above discussion assessee’s claim of registration section 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds:

• Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. • Benefited to interested persons.
Ram Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Kota.

• Non-Genuineness of activities.
• Profitability
06. Further 12AB (1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfiedhas to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier registration. Thus, it is clarified that applicant’s provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 dated 10.03.2022 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularisation of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also lapsed and cancelled.”
Hence this Appeal.
GOA 1:This is a general ground and may kindly be considered while deciding the other grounds.
Complete non-application of mind by the Ld. CIT(E):
At the outset there is no hesitation to say that there has been complete non-application of mind by the Ld. CIT(E)which is evident from the fact that firstly, the Ld. CIT(E) vide its earlier order of dt. 28.12.2024 which perhaps belong to some other assessee, wrongly/mistakenly passed the order in the case of the assessee and this fact he himself has admitted in Pg.1 Para 1 in the impugned order in the following words:
“Please refer to this office order
No.
ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-
25/1071648752(1) dated 28.12.2024. You are requested to ignore the rejection order passed by this office, as there was some mistake & some other order was pasted in your case.”
The registration granted u/s12AB(1)(b)(i) as also the provisional registration u/s12A(1)(ac)(vi), have been erroneously cancelled on misconception and showing example of complete non-application of mind on the part of the Ld. CIT(E), as evident from his findings recorded on page 17 of the impugned order reproduced here in above that the claim of registration u/s 12AB is also liable to be rejected on the ground of non- providing of its genuine activities. However, he has completely ignored that the appellant trust was already granted permanent approval u/s s12A(1)(ac)(i) from AY-
2022-23 to AY-2026-27 vide order for registration in form 10 dated 24.09.2021(PB 190-
192). There being no obligation on the part of the appellant to apply for continuation of registration at that point of time, such an observation by the Ld. CIT(E) is contrary to the facts of law. Otherwise also, the Ld. CIT(E) has completely ignored the statutory requirement mandated upon him u/s 12AB(4)(II) that before cancelling the registration through an order in writing, he was bound to have afforded an opportunity of being
Ram Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Kota.

heard to the Appellants, which in this present case is completely missing in as much as no SCN u/s 12AB(4)(II) was given to the appellant and there is no dispute on this fact.
The way the ld. CIT(E) has created a chaos. He has acted in a perfunctory manner as evident from the fact that he has cancelled/denied the registration granted u/s 12AB has also refused/cancelled provisional registration u/s 12A, which was not an issue before him at all and on the other hand, he has left the approval sought under section 80G(5) pending. The entire impugned order therefore deserves to be quashed on this ground alone.
The CIT(E) rejected the same on the grounds which are summarised herein below:
A. Non-registration/non-compliance under Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1959:
B. Benefit given to interested person u/s 13(3):
C. Profitability
D. Non-Genuineness of Activities

Our submission thereon proceeds hereinafter.
GOA 2: Denial of registration u/s 12AB and cancellation of provisional registration:
A. The Rajasthan Public Act – Not Applicable:
Facts: The CIT(E) discussed this aspect at Pg.1-5 Para 2.1-2.5 and finally concluded as under:
“In response, vide reply, the applicant stated that it has applied for RPT under DevasthanVibhag.
The above reply of the applicant that it has applied for the Devasthan
Department is not tenable as till date they are not registered but only applied for the same. Application to the concerned department is not enough proof whether application has accepted and verified all the formalities at their end. Therefore, in view of the above, contention of the applicant is not tenable that they have applied for the registration under RPT Act, 1959. Thus, it is clear that as on date, trust is not registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Therefore, in light of above discussion and in the absence of registration under Rajasthan Public
Trust Act, 1959, assessee is not eligible for registration u/s 12AB.”
Submission:
Ram Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Kota.

are reproducing herein below the relevant provisions of section 12AB of the Act as under:
Procedure for fresh registration.
12AB. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on receipt of an application made under clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, shall, —
(a)
Where the application is made under sub-clause (i) of the said clause, pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution for a period of five years;
(b)
Where the application is made under sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) [or item (B) of sub-clause (vi)] of the said clause, —
(i) Call for such documents or information from the trust or institution or make such inquiries as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy him about—
(A)
The genuineness of activities of the trust or institution; and (B) the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects;
(ii) after satisfying himself about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities under item (A) and compliance of the requirements under item (B), of sub-clause (i), —
(A)
Pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution for a period of five years; or (B)
If he is not so satisfied, pass an order in writing, —
(I) in a case referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (v) of clause (ac) of subsection (1) of section 12A rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration;
(II)
In a case referred to in sub-clause (iv) or in item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
4. The relevant provisions reproduced (supra) in bold and underlined, is an attempt by us to analyze the provision in proper perspective of Law in the light of Judicial Pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court, specifically the citations being relied upon by the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur, i.e. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 46 (A.P.)
Aurora Educational Society vs. CCIT, relevant paras are reproduced as under:
“10. The scope and amplitude of section 10(23C) (vi) of the Income-tax Act, the provisos there under and the rules and forms applicable thereto, which were the Ram Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Kota.

subject-matter of examination in New Noble Educational Society vs. Chief CIT
[2011] 334 ITR 303/201 Taxman 33/ 12 taxmann.com 267(AP) and in R. R. M.
Educational Society vs. Chief CIT [2011] 339 ITR 323 (AP) can, conveniently, be summarized as under:
1. As section 20A of the A. P. Education Act prohibits individuals from establishing educational institutions, it is only societies/associations/ trusts which can establish educational institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh.”
“19. On a conjoint reading of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 8 of the A. P.
Societies Registration Act, 2001, it is only when the amendment to the objects of a society (educational agency) is intimated and the