SETU SANSTHAN,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. 1567 & 1568/JP/2024
U/S 12AB of the Act
And vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1565 & 1566/JP/2024
U/S 80G of the Act
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABQAS 1357 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 21/04/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
These are four appeals filed by the assessee against two different orders of the Ld.CIT (Exemption), Jaipur dated 09-12-2024 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. 1567/JP/2024 U/S 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961
1. That the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional registration and nor issued show cause notice for rejection of provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly restore the same.
That the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional registration u/s 12A without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular and notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly restore the same.
That the order passed by ld CIT(E), Jaipur by rejecting provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly restore the same.
ITA NO. 1568/JP/2024 U/S 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961
‘’ That the order passed by the 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.
ITA NO. 1565/JP/2024 U/S 80G of I.T. Act, 1961
1. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
SETU SANSTHAN VS CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur rejected the application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act which is wrong, unwarranted ad bad in law. Kindly direct to register the appellant
ITA NO. 1566/JP/2024 U/S 80G of I.T. Act, 1961
1. That the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional approval and nor issued show cause notice for rejection of provisional approval u/s 80G of the Act which is wrong unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly restore the same.
That the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by rejecting the provisional approval u/s 80G without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order which is against the circular and notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly restore the same. 3. That the order passed by ld. CIT(E), Jaipur by rejecting provisional approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.
1 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 1567/JP/2024 and 1568/JP/2024, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act by observing as under:-
‘’05. In view of the above discussion assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds:-
Incomplete Form 10AB
Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959
Non Genuineness of Activities and non compliance
Further 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfied has 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 27-09-2023 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 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 1565 & 1566/JP/2024, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’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
Further 2nd proviso to Section 80G(5) also state that if CIT is not satisfied has to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier approval. Thus, it is clarified that applicant’s provisional approval under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28-09-2023 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.’’ During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus the orders should be quashed being ex- parte orders and against the principles of natural justice. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee stated at Bar that the assessee trust is in the process of applying the registration under RPT Act before the competent authority and it is likely to get the same. Conclusively, the ld AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee trust may be provided one more opportunity to the contest the case before the ld CIT(E) and restore the appeals to the file of ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication as the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(E). 3.4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E). 3.5 After hearing both parties and perusing the materials available on record, we noticed that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act on following grounds:-
Incomplete Form 10AB
Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959
Non Genuineness of Activities and non compliance.
Therefore, in these circumstances, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with the direction that as and when the assessee trust produces the copy of the Registration under RPT Act, 1959 then the application of the assessee trust for registration u/s 12AB of the Act be decided afresh in accordance with law. The assessee trust is also directed to produce the complete Form 10AB and produce the documents relating to the genuineness of the activities etc. before the ld CIT(E)
3.6
Since we have restored the appeals 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 appeals of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act are consequential in nature.
3.7
Order pronounced in the open court on 24 /04/2025 ¼jkBksM 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:- 24 /04/2025
*Mishra
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- M/s. Setu Sansthan, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The CIT(E), Jaipur
3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1567, 1568, 1566 & 1567/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत