Loading judgment…
Facts
The applicant filed two applications before the learned CIT(E) for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. Both applications were dismissed by the CIT(E) on grounds of being premature, non-registration under the RPT Act, and non-genuineness of activities.
Held
The Tribunal held that the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act was not essential for IT registration, and the CIT(E) failed to consider CBDT circulars regarding the application timeline. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant was not responsive to certain queries, leading to the dismissal.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in dismissing the applications for registration and approval without considering relevant circulars and the applicability of the RPT Act, and whether the non-responsiveness of the appellant warrants a complete dismissal or a remand.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)(iii), 12A, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
Appellant in both the above captioned two appeals, filed two separate applications before Learned CIT(E), Jaipur. One application was u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, seeking its registration, and the other application was u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, seeking approval. Vide two separate orders of same date i.e. 03.06.2025, Learned CIT(E), dismissed both applications.
& 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. Feeling aggrieved by the two impugned orders, the applicant is before this Appellate Tribunal, by filing of the above two captioned appeals.
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.
& 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. When confronted with this query, Ld. DR for the department has not been able to explain these contradictory observations by Learned CIT(E) in the impugned order.
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.
& 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. Ground No.2 of rejection 7. As regards the second ground of rejection of the application i.e. non registration of the applicant under RPT Act, 1959, as per decision by the Co-ordinate Bench of Jaipur Benches, in APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust v. CIT(E),delivered on 15.01.2025, that registration under RPT Act, 1959 is not essential requirement to seek registration under Income Tax Act. Therefore, this ground does not survive for rejection of registration of the appellant. Ground No.3 of rejection As regards 3rd ground of rejection of the application, Ld. AR for the 8. appellant candidly admits that the assessee was not responsive to certain queries raised by Learned CIT(E), but, at the same time, Ld. AR has requested that this issue be also restored for being adjudicated by Learned CIT(E), after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant.
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.
11. Vide impugned order, which has led to filing of the said appeal, Learned CIT(E) rejected the other application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, seeking approval for the said samiti.
12 of the Act seeking registration has been restored to its original number. The impugned order, which is a consequential order, also deserves to be set aside for decision of the said application afresh.
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.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06 /10/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत