Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Nalini Foundation, filed an online application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected the application, citing non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, non-genuineness of activities, and issues with business objects, and also cancelled its provisional registration.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(E) and directed the assessee to submit the required documents/information to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, restoring the matter to the CIT(E)'s file.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) rightly rejected the registration application without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
12AB, 12A, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A JAIPUR
ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(Exemption) dated 24-10-2024 passed u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising therein following ground of appeal. ‘’Ground No.1: On the facts and in the circumstances of case, the ld. CIT(E) erred in passing the order of rejecting registration u/s 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961 and also cancelling to earlier registration on the basis of Non-registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, Non-genuineness of activities and Business objects without considering the facts and documents provided by assessee which is illegal and liable to be quashed.’’ NALINI FOUNDATION VS CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, it is noticed that there is delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before ITAT,Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for which the Secretary of the Foundation Shri Prabhat Mathur filed an application dated 25-07-2025 for condonation of delay with following prayer. ‘’Our application has been delayed by 17 days beyond the prescribed period. The delay was purely unintentional and occurred due to circumstances beyond our control. The person responsible for handling our income tax matters was out of town during the relevant period and as a result, the procedural steps required for filing the appeal could not be completed without the stipulated time. We respectfully submit that the delay is neither deliberate nor due to any negligence on our part, but is solely attributable to the genuine difficulty faced in the absence of the concerned person. We assure your Honours that we have been diligent in pursuing our statutory rights and request that this delay be condoned in the interest of justice. In the light of the above, we most humbly pray that your Honours may kindly condone the delay 17 days in filing the appeal and admit our for adjudication on merits’’ 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that it is the duty of the assessee to file the appeal in time but at the same time he left the decision to the court on the cause explained by the assessee. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the submissions of the assessee, the Bench feels that the assessee was prevented with sufficient reason for not filling the appeal in time and therefore, we condone the delay as this delay occurred due to omission on the part of his staff and not on the part of the assessee.
NALINI FOUNDATION VS CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR Hence, the delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeal before us is condoned. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the applicant – Nalini Foundation filed online application under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.04.2024. A letter/notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2024- 25/1066251978(1) dated 29.06.2024 was issued at the e- mail/address provided in the application requiring the assessee to submit certain documents/explanations by 15.07.2024. In compliance thereof, the applicant submitted part reply which was examined, and certain discrepancies had been noticed by the ld. CIT(E) who conveyed these discrepancies to the applicant vide show cause letter dated 16-10-2-2024 wherein date of hearing was fixed for 21-10-2024. However, in compliance thereof, the assessee furnished its reply which was examined by the ld. CIT(E) but the ld. CIT(E) did not find the applicant foundation eligible for registration u/s 12AB of the Act and thus ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application by observing as under:-
NALINI FOUNDATION VS CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR ‘’05. In view of above discussion, the application for registration under section 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on followinggrounds:- Non-Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Non-Genuineness of activities. Business Objects.. 0.6 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 07-02- 2024 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also lapsed and cancelled.’’ 2.2. While hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided proper opportunity of personal hearing by the ld. CIT(E) and thus the order should be quashed being ex-parte order and against the principles of natural justice. Alternatively, the ldAR of the assessee prayed that the assessee foundation may be provided one more opportunity to contest the case before the ld CIT(E) and restore the matter to the file of ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication as the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(E). 2.3. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(E).
NALINI FOUNDATION VS CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the assessee is ex-parte before the ld.CIT(E) as the ld.CIT(E) had provided two times opportunities to the assessee foundation to file the desired documents/ information but the same could not be properly submitted and thus the ld. CIT(E) rejected the registration u/s 12AB of the Act as mentioned above. One of the reason for rejection was that the assessee was not registered under the RPT Act which the assessee submitted that the same is received by now and therefore, the observation of the ld. CIT(E) are curative in nature and therefore, one chance may be given. From the entirety of the facts, circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the prayer of the assessee foundation, the Bench directs the assessee foundation to submit the required documents/ information before the ld. CIT(E) to end the apple of discord and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for afresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
NALINI FOUNDATION VS CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 /09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/09/2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Nalini Foundation, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The CIT (Exemption), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 45/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत