KGK FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR
आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oaJhujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 1104 & 1105/JP/2025
U/S 12AB & 80G of the Act fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :- 2025-26
KGK Foundation
E-44, Lal Bahadur Nagar, JLN Marg,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur – 302 017
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKCK 5948 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma,CA
Shri Rajnikant Bhatra,CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha,CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 08/09/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld.CIT (Exemption), Jaipur dated 26-03-
2025 passed under section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act,
1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the above-mentioned appeals are as under: -
ITA NO. 1104/JP/2025 U/S 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961
‘’1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by Id. CIT. Exemption u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the IT Act,
1961
rejecting application of the appellant for registration u's
120(1)(ac)(iii) and cancelling carlier provisional registration granted u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) of the IT Act, 1961 is wrong and bad in law
That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT, Exemption while rejecting application u's 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) is grossly wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that activities of the appellant are allegedly non-genuine and are also allegedly beyond the objects of charitable nature even though full details of charitable activities carried by the appellant for furtherance of its object backed by documentary evidence were submitted before him. The finding so recorded by the Id. CIT(A) is wrong, arbitrary, unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts, without any corroborative evidence and bad in law
That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, the Id. CIT. Exemption is also wrong and has grossly erred in law in cancelling provisional registration granted to appellant u/s 12(A)(1)(ac)(vi)(A) vide order dt 27-03-2024 on the account of finding recorded by him about alleged non genuineness of appellant's activities and that these activities were allegedly beyond object of charitable nature
ITA NO. 1105/JP/2025 U/S 80G of I.T. Act, 1961
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by Id. CIT, Exemption under second proviso to sec. 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 rejecting the application of the appellant for approval u/s 80G and also cancelling carlier order dt. 29.03.2024 granting provisional approval under clause (iv)(A) of first provise to sec. 80G(5) is wrong and bad in law.
2 That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT, Exemption while rejecting application u/s 80G is grossly wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that appellant has allegedly failed to furnish any reply to show cause notices and therefore as held by him in order dt. 26.06.2025 u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the IT Act, 1961 cancelling registration u/s 12AB that activities of the appellant are allegedly not genuine and are also beyond the objects of charitable nature. The finding so recorded by the Id. ст.
Exemption is wrong, arbitrary, unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts. without any corroborative evidence and bad in law in as much detailed reply to show cause notices duly supported by documentary evidences were submitted to him. The cancellation of application for registration u/s 80G on the ground that application o's 12AB is rejected is therefore wrong and bad in law
That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, the Id. CTT, Exemption is also wrong and has grossly erred in law in cancelling provisional approval granted to it clause (iv)(A) of first proviso to sec. 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 vide order d 27.03.2024 on account of finding recorded by him in order dated 26.06.2025 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) about alleged non genuineness of appellant's activities and activities carried were allegedly beyond object of charitable nature
1 Apropos of the grounds so raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1104/JP/2025, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act by observing at page 22 of his order asunder:-
‘’ The applicant has not furnished complete details with documentary evidences as asked vide various notices. Hence, from the above, it is clear that the activities are not verifiable and it could not be determined whether the applicant is genuinely carrying out charitable 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 followinggrounds:-
Genuineness of activities and activities beyond the objects of charitable nature.
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 27.03.2024 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 cancelled.’’ 1105/JP/2025, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing at pages 1 & 2 of his order as under:- ‘’02. Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB
1. As per rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rule, 1962, the registration u/s 12A/12AB or notification u/s 10(23C) is a precondition for granting approval u/s 80G of the IT Act, 1961 Vide this office order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025- 26/1077870627(1) dated 26.06.2025, the application of the applicant for grant approval u/s 12A/12B was rejected. Also, during the present proceedings, the applicant has also failed to furnish any replies, thus, genuineness of activities and all the above issues remains same. Thus, genuineness of activities and all the issues remain same. Thus, the claim of the applicant u/s 80G is liable to rejected on this issue on following grounds
Non Genuineness of Activities and activities beyond the objects of charitable nature.
In view of above discussion, the application in form No. 10AB seeking exemption u/s 80G is liable to be rejected
In view of above discussion assessee's claim of approval u/s 80G is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds: -
-Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB
04. Further 2nd proviso to 80G(5) also state that if CIT is not satisfiedhas to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier approval. Thus, it is clarified that applicant provisional approval under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated29.03.2024 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.’’
3 In the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee has submitted an application under rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 with the request to admit the following documents in support of the merits KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR of the disputes which the assessee could not place on record on earlier occasion : 1. Copy of Registration Certificate issued by the