Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee-trust filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the CIT(E) on grounds of non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and non-genuineness of activities. The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay, for which condonation was sought and granted.
Held
The Tribunal held that non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is not a bar to registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee failed to furnish sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of its activities.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) rightly rejected the application for registration under Section 12AB on the grounds of non-registration under the RPT Act and non-genuineness of activities.
Sections Cited
12AB, 12A(1)(ac)(vi), 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur dated 29.11.2024 passed u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - Seva Bharti Samiti Sanganer Jaipur
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. CTT (Exemption), Jaipur grossly erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. CIT (Exemption) grossly erred in not offering a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application for registration.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (Exemption) Jaipur grossly erred in not considering the fact that the activities of society are genuine and the society has fulfilled all the necessary conditions of registration.
That the appellant craves his indulgence to add, amend, alter or delete the grounds of appeal.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-society against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur. At the threshold, it is observed that there is a delay in filing of the appeal. The statutory due date for filing the appeal was 31/01/2025, whereas the appeal has been filed on 17/05/2025, thereby resulting in a delay of approximately three and a half months. The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit of Shri Rameshwar Lal Sharma, Treasurer and authorized signatory of the appellant- society. It has been explained that Shri Sharma, being the person duly authorized to represent and sign on behalf of the appellant, was suffering from prolonged illness during the relevant period. On account of his health condition, the appellant could not make necessary arrangements for filing of the appeal within the prescribed time. In support of this contention, the appellant has placed on record a medical certificate evidencing the illness of Shri Sharma.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and examined the supporting documents placed on record. The explanation tendered is duly corroborated by medical evidence and a sworn affidavit. The law on condonation of delay is well-settled that, while exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Seva Bharti Samiti Sanganer Jaipur Limitation Act, a liberal and pragmatic approach is to be adopted to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has laid down that unless mala fides or gross negligence are established, delay supported by bona fide reasons should ordinarily be condoned so that matters are adjudicated on merits rather than dismissed on technicalities of limitation. In the present case, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned due to reasonable cause beyond the control of the appellant and not attributable to deliberate inaction or negligence. Accordingly, we hold that sufficient cause has been shown, and therefore, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. The appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
The brief facts are that the assessee-trust filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB (1) (b) (ii) (B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide application dated 29/06/2024. The assessee was earlier granted provisional registration under section 12A (1) (ac) (vi) of the Act. During the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur rejected the application of the assessee and simultaneously cancelled the provisional registration on the following grounds:
i. Non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959; and ii. Non-genuineness of activities.
3. It was noted by the Ld. CIT(E) that in exercise of powers under section 12AB, various details were called from the assessee, inter alia, list of donors, copies of annual accounts for last three years, bills and vouchers, photographs of activities, details of social media handles, digital footprint, and complete bank Seva Bharti Samiti Sanganer Jaipur account details. However, despite grant of three opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details. In the absence of such documents, the Ld. CIT (E) concluded that the genuineness of activities could not be verified. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.
4. Objection regarding registration under the RPT Act, 1959 We find that the issue whether non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is fatal for the purposes of grant of registration under section 12AB is no longer res integra. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust v. CIT (Exemption) [2025] 171 taxmann.com 569 (Jaipur – Trib.) has categorically held that registration under the RPT Act, 1959 is not mandatory for the purposes of section 12AB of the Act. It has been observed that there is no overriding effect of one statute over the other and that absence of registration under the RPT Act cannot be a ground to deny registration under the Income-tax Act. Thus, the first objection raised by the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur, is without merit and is accordingly rejected.
5. Objection regarding genuineness of activities Coming to the second objection, we note that despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to submit relevant evidences such as details of donors, annual accounts, vouchers, photographs of activities, digital footprint, and bank account details to substantiate the genuineness of its activities. Even before us, the assessee has not placed on record any cogent material to demonstrate actual carrying out of charitable activities in accordance with its stated objects.
Seva Bharti Samiti Sanganer Jaipur 6. Section 12AB of the Act empowers the Commissioner (Exemptions) to call for such information and documents as may be necessary to satisfy him-self about the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution. In the absence of compliance with such statutory requirements, the onus cast upon the assessee remains un-discharged. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur on this issue. The assessee having failed to establish the genuineness of its activities, the rejection of application under section 12AB of the Act on this ground is justified. Accordingly, this objection of the assessee is rejected. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 15th day of September 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 15/09/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. आयकर आयु� CIT 3. 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड� फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Jaipur
Details Date Initials Designation
1 Draft dictated on PC on 15.09.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 15.09.2025 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM
4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order