Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals arose from the rejection of applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the trust not being registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and doubts about the genuineness of its activities. The appeals were filed with a delay of 29 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was condoned due to the applicant's uncertainty regarding available remedies and the subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of both the registration and genuineness of activities, with an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned and whether the applications for registration and approval should be reconsidered by the CIT(E) after the trust obtained subsequent registration and provided opportunities for hearing.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)(iii), 13(3), 1959
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
vkns'k@ORDER Per: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member This common order is to dispose of the above captioned 2 appeals as these are interconnected and arise out of same facts.
By way of first mentioned appeal, appellant has challenged order dated 26.12.2024, passed by Learned CIT(E) as thereby its application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1961”), stands rejected on the ground that the applicant was not & 504/JPR/2025 Shri Ram Gousala Samit, Sikar registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, (in short “the Act, 1959”), and on another ground that the applicant could not establish genuineness of its activities.
On the basis of rejection of the above said application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, an application filed u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, in Form No. 10AB, seeking approval of CIT(E) also came to be rejected. Second mentioned appeal -ITA No. 504/JPR/2025 arises out of said order.
As per deficiency notes, both the above captioned appeals were filed 29 days after the prescribed period of limitation. In this regard, trust has filed applications seeking condonation of delay. First all submissions have been put forth on the point of condonation of delay.
Ld. AR for the applicant trust has submitted that delay in filing of the appeals occurred as it was not clear as to what was the exact remedy available to the trust when the applications were ejected also on the ground of non registration under the Act 1959. The applications are supported by an affidavit of Shri Saty Narayan, President of the trust, wherein he has testified about the above said ground which led to delay in filing of the appeals.
Ld. DR for the department has not opposed the prayer for condonation of delay.
& 504/JPR/2025 Shri Ram Gousala Samit, Sikar Even otherwise, the affidavit of the President submitted on this issue goes unchallenged. Keeping in view the abovesaid sufficient cause for non filing of the appeals within prescribed period, and that the appeals were filed only 29 days after the prescribed period, the applications seeking condonation of delay are allowed and the both appeals are admitted.
Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that in order to comply with requirement of registration of the appellant trust under the Act, 1959, appropriate application was filed before the competent authority, whereby the applicant trust stands registered under the said Act, as per certificate dated 25.03.2025, and further submitted that in the given situation, both the applications u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and 80G(5)(iii) of the Act be restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh, while providing an opportunity to the applicant of being heard, even as regards genuineness of the activities of the trust.
Ld. DR for the department has submitted that when two applications i.e. u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, were filed by the appellant trust without its registration under the Act, 1959, Learned CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications. In support of his contention, Ld. DR & 504/JPR/2025 Shri Ram Gousala Samit, Sikar has relied on decision in Lokesh Agarwal Dharmarth Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E), 2024) 164 taxmann.com 228 (Jaipur –Trib.) 9. Admittedly, on the applications submitted by the applicant trust before the competent authority, the applicant trust stands registered under the Act, 1959 as per certificate dated 25.03.2025. In view of the registration of the applicant trust under the RPT Act, 1959, the matter needs to be remitted to Learned CIT(E) so as to enable him to reconsider the issue of registration of the trust under the said Act, which was one of the grounds for rejection of the two applications. Learned CIT(E) also dismissed application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii), on the ground of non genuineness of activities. In this regard, Learned CIT(E) observed that actually the activities of the trust were not verifiable and it could not be determined whether the applicant trust was genuinely carrying out any charitable activity and that too as per its objects, the reason being that despite sufficient opportunity the applicant trust failed to furnish requisite details/information/documents.
Record reveals that Learned CIT(E) issued letter dated 03.09.2024, to the applicant trust to furnish various details for the purpose of verification of genuineness of its activities, but no reply was furnished to the said letter. Yet another opportunity was provided vide letter dated 18.10.2024, but the & 504/JPR/2025 Shri Ram Gousala Samit, Sikar applicant trust remained non compliant. Still another opportunity was granted vide letter dated 07.11.2024. This time, the representative of the applicant furnished reply thereto, but did not furnish list of donors, details of bills/vouchers of major expenses, details of charitable activities, details of all persons covered by provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act, 1961, bank transaction of the value more than Rs. 20,000/-, details of donation received, details of salary paid, details of charitable activities and details of beneficiaries.
Learned CIT(E) then issued show cause notice dated 07.12.2024. pointing out to the assessee the short comings, and at the same time called upon the applicant to furnish requisite details. The representative of the applicant trust furnished reply on 21.12.2024, but Learned CIT(E) was not satisfied with the documents presented as most of the bills and vouchers which were without signature ; some of the bills were not verified by the concerned banks; some bills/vouchers appeared to be bogus as most of them did not contain correct information as to in whose favour bills were drawn ; neither any photographs nor any news paper cutting was submitted in proof of the activities of the trust.
& 504/JPR/2025 Shri Ram Gousala Samit, Sikar From the above, observations made by Learned CIT(E), it transpires that the applicant trust was non compliant as regards certain details/information/documents requisitioned by him.
As noticed above, Ld. AR for the appellant has sought opportunity to comply with all the directions issued by Learned CIT(E) regarding verification of the activities of the appellant trust. When the two applications have been restored because of subsequent registration of the trust under the RPT Act, 1959, we deem it a fit case to restore this issue as well for decision afresh by Learned CIT(A) i.e. as regards genuineness of activities of the trust, while providing an opportunity to the applicant trust on being heard.
Consequently, both the appeals and 504/JPR/2025 are disposed of for statistical purposes and the both the above said applications are restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for its decision afresh.
Having regard to the factum of non compliance by the applicant trust by non furnishing of requisite details/information/documents, despite repeated notices, we deem it a fit case to impose costs. The applicant Trust is burdened with costs of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited by the applicant in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”.