MOHAN LAL KRISHAN AVTAR RAWAT MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST (BOBAS WALE),JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 307 & 306/JPR/2025 u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act Mohan Lal Krishan Avtar Rawat Memorial cuke The CIT-Exemption, Vs. Chariable Trust (BOBAS WALE) Jaipur. Near Biyani Girls College Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur 302 030 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAITM 7530 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28/04/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 05 /05/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

These are two appeals filed by the assessee against two different orders of the Ld.CIT (Exemption), Jaipur both dated 28-12- 2024 passed under section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals are as under:-

U/s 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961 ‘’1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(E), Jaipur by rejecting application u/s 12AB(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.’’ U/s 80G of I.T. Act, 1961 ‘’That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur rejected the application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.’’ 2.1 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’In view of the above, it is clear that assessee has made only book entry for the entire transactions. Accordingly, violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and also specific violation of clause (a) below Explanation 12AB(4). Further act of money siphoning by trustees also makes it clear that trust is not working genuinely and meant for siphoning of public donation, thus result in non-genuineness activity.

2.1. 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 I.T. Act, 1961. Vide this office order No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2024- 25/1071655448(1) dated 28.12.2024. Also during the present proceedings, the applicant has also failed to furnish any replies, thus the genuineness of activities and all the above issues remains same. Thus, genuineness of activities and all the above issues remains same. Thus the claim of the applicant u/s 80G is liabel to be rejected on this issue on following grounds:-

 Non-Genuineness of activities. In view of above discussion, the application in form No. 10AB seeking exemption u/s 80G is liable to be rejected.

03. 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.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in both the appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus both the orders should be quashed being against the principles of natural justice. Further, it is submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that he has submitted all the required documents as desired by the ld. CIT(E) but the ld. CIT(E) without verifying the details, documents, evidences, in a routine manner rejected the approval of registration of trust u/s 12AB of the Act. The ld.ARof the assessee also submitted that the assessee trust is a charitable Trust and it has also got registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1959 for which the ld.AR of the assessee has submitted the copy of registration before the Bench. Conclusively, he prayed that he should be given one more chance to contest the case before the ld. CIT(E) to resolve the issue and also to apprise him about the documents already produced by the Trust for registration u/s 12AB of the Act.

2.4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(E). 2.5 After hearing both parties and perusing the materials available on record, we noticed that an application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected by the ld CIT(E) on following grounds:- * Non - Genuineness of activities In the course of hearing of the case, it is requested by the ld.AR of the assessee that he had complied with the instructions of the ld. CIT(E) and supplied all the documents demanded by the ld. CIT(E) but it appears that the same has not been properly examined by the ld CIT(E). He submitted that from the records it can be seen the genuineness of the activities of the trust and also its objects. He prayed that one more chance should be given to the assessee trust to re-submit or argue the case before the ld. CIT(E) so that he will be in a position reappraise the case to the ld. CIT(A). The Bench adopts the lenient view and feels that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to advance the documents before the ld. CIT(E) as to registration of the trust u/s 12AB of the Act. Hence, in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is restored to the file of the ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication by providing adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee is also required to submit the documents as demanded by the ld. CIT(E) with regard to registration of the Trust u/s 12AB of the Act. Thus this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

2.6 Since we have restored the appeal of the assessee with regard to the registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication, therefore, the outcome of appeal of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act is consequential in nature.

2.7 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back (supra) to the file of the ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law.

3.0 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05 /05/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;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:- 05 /05 /2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Mohan Lal Krishan Avtar Rawat Memorial Chariable Trust (BOBAS WALE) 2. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- The CIT (E). 3. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 5. xkMZQkbZy@Guard File {ITA No. 307 & 306/JPR/2025} vkns'kkuqlkj@By order

सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत