Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sought registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT (Exemption) rejected the application on three grounds: incomplete Form 10AB, non-registration under the RPT Act, 1959, and lack of genuineness of activities. The assessee filed an appeal against this rejection, seeking condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to costs of Rs. 2000/-. The Tribunal held that registration under the RPT Act, 1959 is not an essential requirement for registration under Section 12AB. Regarding the incomplete form and genuineness of activities, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB on the grounds of incomplete form, non-registration under RPT Act, and genuineness of activities, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
12AB, 17A(2)(k)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
On 18.09.2023, Learned CIT (Exemption), Jaipur rejected an application submitted by the appellant-applicant seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), on the following three grounds:- Incomplete form 10AB. Non registration with RPT Act, 1959. Genuineness of activities.
Shri Vishwakarma Kalyan Samiti vs. CIT(E) Feeling aggrieved by the said order of rejection of the application, applicant is before this Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal has been filed on 20.01.2025 whereas the impugned order is dated 18.09.2023. Subsequently the applicant submitted an application seeking condonation of delay of 417 days.
Firstly, Ld. AR for the applicant advanced arguments on the application seeking condonation of delay. Ld. AR has submitted that due to recent changes in the laws relating to trusts/institutions/societies, the representative of the applicant Samiti was not aware of the exact legal remedy i.e. whether to file fresh application under section 12 AB of the Act, before Learned CIT(E) or to file an appeal before this Appellate Tribunal.
Alongwith the application, Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, President of the applicant society has filed his affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the aforesaid ground put forth by Ld. AR.
We have considered the aforesaid reason seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the application and the affidavit, it has been averred that 2 to 3 consultants of different cities were contacted for proper legal advice about the proper remedy, as regards impugned order.
Shri Vishwakarma Kalyan Samiti vs. CIT(E) We find that nowhere in the application or the affidavit, it has been specified as to when the representative or President of the applicant contacted any said consultant, or as to who were consultants, and from which cities. To satisfy this Appellate Tribunal about sufficient cause for late filing of the appeal, all these details were required to be furnished, but the same have not been furnished. However, taking into consideration that the applicant society claims itself to be charitable society and the issues involved, as regards its registration u/s 12AB of the Act, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, but subject to costs. The applicant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/-while disposing of this application seeking condonation of delay. Costs to be deposited by the applicant with “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”.
Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department have put forth their submissions in the appeal on merits today itself. We proceed to take up each of the three grounds made basis for rejection of prayer for registration of the appellant under section 12 AB of the Act.
Shri Vishwakarma Kalyan Samiti vs. CIT(E) Non registration under RPT Act, 1959 7. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that Co-ordinate Bench ITAT, Jaipur has held in APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust vs. CIT(E) decided on 15.01.2025 that for the purposes of registration of such institutions, u/s 12AB of the Act, registration under RPT Act, 1959 is not one of the essential requirements. Therefore, this ground does not survive any more for refusal of the registration of the appellant. Incomplete Form 10AB 8. In the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) has observed that the application submitted by the applicant was incomplete as a note as regards activities of the applicant was not furnished as per requirement of Rule 17A(2)(k) of the I.T. Rules. He went on to observe that some other details were also requisitioned from the assessee vide various notices, but the same were not provided. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the matter may be restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) so that the appellant complies with all the requirements of law.
When Learned CIT(E) provided opportunities to the applicant to complete the form by furnishing requisite details, the applicant was required to comply with the directions. But, it did not comply with. However, taking Shri Vishwakarma Kalyan Samiti vs. CIT(E) into consideration that the appellant claims itself to be a charitable society, the matter deserves to be restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration on this aspect, after providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Genuineness of Activities 10. As is available from para 4 of the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) specified therein non compliance on the part of the applicant as it failed to furnish the following details:- List of donors. Bills and vouchers of expenses. Photograph of activities. Details of social handle. Digital footprint. Details of bank account details of last three years. Copy of vidhan niyamavali, thus cannot be checked its complete provisions.