JAN CHETNA BAL KALYAN SAMITI ,SIKAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

This common order is to dispose of the two appeals, as they are inter liked with each other and based on common facts.

Application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, came to be dismissed, on the following three grounds:-  Premature/non-maintainable application without valid provisional certificate.  Non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.  Non Genuineness of activities. Ground No.1 of rejection 4. As noticed above, first ground of rejection of the application is that the application was not maintainable without valid provisional certificate. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that in para 6 of the impugned order, while rejecting said application, Learned CIT(E) clarified that the application for provisional registration sub- clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Action 12A of the Act was also being cancelled. In this situation, when there was no provisional certificate, we fail to understand as to where was the need to clarify that the provisional registration under the said provision was also being cancelled.

Even otherwise, in para 2.1, Learned CIT(E) observed that provisional certificate issued to the applicant was for the assessment years 2022-23 to 2024-25. So, as observed by Learned CIT(E), the provisional certificate was valid upto March, 2024. Present application 12A(10(ac)(iii) of the Act, came to be filed on 06.11.2024. It may mentioned here that as per Circular 06/2023 dated 24.05.2023, CBDT clarified that the trust already existing were required to apply afresh for registration/approval, and further that once registered/ approval is granted, it would be valid for 5 years.

On going through the impugned order, we find that Learned CIT(E) has not considered the instructions issued vide circular dated 24.05.2023, as regards approval. So, we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to Learned CIT(E) to consider the above said issue, while taking into consideration the relevant circular(s) issued by CBDT.

A perusal of page 18 of the impugned order would reveal that the applicant remained non complaint, as regards several directions issued by Learned CIT(E). It was duty of the applicant, and also in its own interest, to furnish requisite information/documents/records so that Learned CIT(E) was in a & 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. position to effectively and accurately decide said issue regarding genuineness of activities of the applicant. Since the issue involved is of much significance, for the purposes of application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, we deem it a fit case to restore the application to the files of Learned CIT(E), for decision afresh, after affording opportunity of the application of being heard. However, for non compliance before Learned CIT(E), the appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/-.

Consequently, is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order, whereby the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, was rejected, said application is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh, after affording opportunity of the application of being heard. The appellant to deposit the amount of costs in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and produce the receipt before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on remand.

For the reasons recorded while dealing with same three grounds of rejections of the other application, this appeal is also disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matter is remitted to Learned CIT(E) for decision of the application under section 80G(5) of the Act afresh, after affording opportunity of the application of being heard. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Copy of the order be also placed in the file of the connected appeal. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2025.