SHARDA CHARITABLE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 April 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's request for another opportunity to comply with directions. Considering this, the matter was remanded to the Learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the applicant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The Learned CIT(Exemption) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing incomplete form, availing benefits under Sections 10, 11, & 12, and non-genuineness of activities. The appellant's representative failed to participate in proceedings or provide requested information despite notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the application for registration under Section 12AB should be rejected outright or if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to comply with the requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac),Section 12AB,Section 10,Section 11,Section 12

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

Hearing: 09/04/2025

vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

On 26.11.2024, Learned CIT (Exemption), Jaipur rejected an application submitted by the appellant-applicant seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Feeling aggrieved by the said order of rejection of the application, applicant is before this Appellate Tribunal. 2. Claim of the assessee seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act has been rejected, on the following three grounds:-

3.

Arguments heard. File perused.

4.

Ld. AR for the appellant submits that the representative of the applicant trust could not participate in the proceedings or comply with the directions issued by Learned CIT(E), for want of acknowledge about notices issued by the said office of Learned CIT(E). At the same time, Ld. AR for the appellant submits that another opportunity may be provided to the applicant trust, by remanding the matter to Learned CIT(E), so that the appellant is able to comply with all the directions issued by Learned CIT(E) for effective adjudication of the application.

5.

Ld. DR for the department has referred to the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(E) and pointed out that three notices were issued by the said office, but the representative of the applicant trust did not comply with the directions contained therein. 6. At page 3 of the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) has specified as to which documents are required to be submitted with suchlike application seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act.

Sharda Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) In para 2.2 of the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) has specified deficiencies in the application. Since the representative of the applicant trust did not take steps for removal of the said deficiencies , Learned CIT(E) had no option, but to proceed further. Similarly for want of other relevant information/documents, despite notices issued to the applicant, Learned CIT(E) observed that it was a case of non genuineness of activities and the applicant trust having been found taking benefit of provisions of section 10,11 & 12 of the Act. In this regard, since the representative of the applicant trust did not submit any reply to the noticed issued by the office of Learned CIT(E), he had no option , but to proceed further and make the said two additional grounds as basis for rejection of the prayer of the appellant.

7.

As mentioned above, Ld. AR for the appellant has requested for another opportunity to appear before Learned CIT(E), assuring that the representative of the appellant shall comply with all the directions issued, and any further to be issued by Learned CIT(E), and the issues involved in the case of said trust, which came to be incorporated in December, 2005, we deem it a fit case to remand the matter to Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh.

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)

All 537 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →