Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after having a provisional registration under Section 12A. The CIT (Exemption) rejected the application and cancelled the provisional registration. The assessee's appeal was initially time-barred, but the delay was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is not mandatory for obtaining registration under the Income Tax Act and set aside this objection. Regarding the genuineness of activities, the matter was restored to the CIT for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is a prerequisite for registration under the Income Tax Act, and the proper procedure for rejection of registration applications.
Sections Cited
12A, 12AB, 80G, 282
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR
These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of CIT (E), Jaipur dated 15.05.2023 & 17.02.2024 passed u/s. 80G (5) and 12AB (1) (b) (ii) (B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal vide as under:
1. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur by rejecting application u/s. 12A (1) (ac) (iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.
2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), 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 I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.
3. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), 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 & notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.
4. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur by rejecting provisional registration u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.
5. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act vide application dated: 17.09.2023. The assessee otherwise already provisionally registered u/s. 12A (1) (ac)(vi) of the Act vide provisional order dated: 30.05.2022. The Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur vide his order dated: 17.02.2024 rejected the application of the assessee trust filed (supra) along with withdrawal of provisional registration granted earlier as mentioned (supra). The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred the present appeal before us. Before we move further on the merits and technicalities of the case, it is brought to our notice by the registry that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 311 days. In response to this delay deficiency pointed out by the registry, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith a duly notarized affidavit. We have gone through the same and found the same to be in order. In these terms the delay in matter is condoned and now we are proceeding to examine the matter on its technicalities and merits.
3. It is observed that the application of the trust was denied on following grounds as under:
A). Incomplete Form No. 10AB; B). Non-Registration as per Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959; C). Genuineness of Activities. It is observed that vide para 1, 2.1 and 2.2 of the Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur’s order that despite of several opportunities to the assessee, requirement as per Rule 17A (2) of the Rules were not fulfilled. Further observed that the documents desired above were not produced before us also for verification, where we may take a view. Hence, in totality of the fact, matter is restored back to the file of The Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur for fresh consideration after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and notices to be issued as per the provisions of the section 282 of the Act. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and cooperative enough this time and participate in the hearing positively without seeking any adjournment.
As far as the issue relating to Non-Registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is concerned, there is a consistent view of this bench that the same is not required. Detailed discussion and findings on this issue is already there in the case of APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust vs.CIT(E)[2025] 171 taxmann.com 569 (Jaipur - Trib.), wherein the undersigned with Ld. Judicial Member held as under:
The Commissioner (Exemption) is duty bound to establish that how the compliance with RPT Act, 1959 is material for the purpose of achieving its objects. Both the statutes, i.e. The Income Tax Act, 1961 and RPT Act, 1959 have to be read together. [Para 5] ■ There is no law which is required to be complied with for achieving the objects of the assessee trust. Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 requires that trustees of the trust have to apply for registration of a public trust; however, there is no section in the RPT Act, 1959 which prohibits a trust to carry out its objects if it is not registered under the RPT Act, 1959. It is opined that both the statutes have their own provisions and implications and none of them have overriding effect. Even if, the assessee trust is not registered with the RPT Act, 1959 and the concerned officials under the RPT Act, 1959 deems it necessary to get the entity registered under section 17 of the RPT Act, 1959, appropriate action can be taken against the trustees of the trust. But this issue can’t be a hurdle in getting registration before the Income Tax Department under section 12AB. [Para 8] ■ In view of discussion, there is no any force in the findings of the Commissioner (Exemption) while holding registration application untenable in the absence of registration under the RPT Act, 1959. [Para 9]
In view of the above, the requirement of getting registration as per Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is not mandatory and the assessee is not required to furnish any document on the same. This objection of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur is set-aside.
On Issue about genuineness of activities, it is observed that there was neither any submission by the assessee nor any remarks by the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur on facts of the case. In view of this, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and the assessee is directed to be vigilant and cooperative during the hearing before the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur without fail and seeking any adjournment.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, 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.
That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), 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 I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.
That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional approval u/s. 80G without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular & notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.
4. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), 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.
5. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.
This appeal entirely dependent on the outcome of the appeal of the assessee above and the same have been restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur, hence same is the decision here also.
In view of this, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and the assessee is directed to be vigilant and cooperative during the hearing before the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur without fail and seeking any adjournment.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 24th day of April 2025.