DHAPI DEVI TORMAL SEWA SAMITI DHANDHAN,FATEHPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 165/JPR/2025
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABAD8492M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Adv.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 08/04/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 08 /04/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
This order is to dispose of appeal filed by the appellant-which claims it to be a charitable institution. Appeal has been preferred feeling aggrieved with the order dated 17.03.2024, passed by Learned CIT(Exemption).
2. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(E) has rejected application filed by the applicant Institution under section 12 AB of the Income Tax Act,
2
1961 (in short “the Act”). Following three grounds have led to rejection thereof:-
Incomplete Form 10AB.
Non Registration of under Rajsthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Genuineness of Activities.
3. It may be mentioned here that present appeal came to be presented after 250 days of the prescribed period of limitation.
In order to seek condonation of delay, an application was presented with the appeal.
4. Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that delay occurred in filing of the appeal as the counsel engaged by the appellant-applicant to pursue the application submitted before Learned CIT(E) advised the representative of the applicant that first of all the applicant should seek registration under RPT Act, 1959 and then file fresh application u/s 12AB of the Act before the CIT(E), whereas the proper remedy was to file an appeal against the impugned order, and as such, delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned.
5. The application seeking a condonation of delay is under the signatures of Smt. Suresh Jhabarmal Sharma, President of the applicant
It may be mentioned here that with the application, affidavit of the President was also submitted, but, no reliance can be placed on the affidavit as the same is defective, firstly, because at the space meant for signatures of the deponent, it does not bear signatures of the deponent, and secondly, because in the verification clause it has not been verified by the deponent that the contents of para 1 to 6 in the affidavit are true and correct to the “belief” of the deponent, as well.
6. In the given situation, the applicant could file affidavit of the concerned Advocate engaged by the applicant to pursue the proceedings on application u/s 12AB of the Act, but, no such affidavit of the concerned
Advocate has been filed.
7. Case of the applicant is that it came to be incorporated on 26.06.2014
vide a registered trust deed, with the object of providing facility of education to children suffering from poverty; to help the helpless persons; to aid educational institutions, and for protection of cows.
Keeping in view the date of incorporation of the trust, and the issues involved in the application seeking registration under section 12 AB of the Act, without going into technicalities, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, subject to costs, due to the deficiencies, notice above. The applicant is burdened with cost of Rs. 1000/- for delay in filing
4
Dhapi Devi Tormal sewa Samiti dhandhan vs. CIT(E) of the appeal. Costs to be deposited by the applicant with “Prime Minister’s
National Relief Fund”.
8. As is available from the impugned order rejecting the application u/s 12AB of the Act, three grounds were raised. Same are taken up one by one.
Non registration of the applicant under RPT Act, 1959
9. As noticed above, this is one of the grounds of rejection of the application. 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.
So, this ground of rejection of the application does not survive any more.
Incomplete Form 10AB & non genuineness of the activities
10. These are other two grounds of rejection of the application.
In the impugned order dealing with application u/s 12AB of the Act,
14. As a result, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose, and while setting aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2024, application u/s 12AB of the Act is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) with direction for decision afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant, in accordance with law.
6
Order pronounced in the open court on 08/04/2025. ¼xxu xks;y½
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(GAGAN GOYAL)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/04/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Dhapi Devi Tormal Sewa Samiti Dhandhan, Sikar.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 165/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत