Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G were rejected by the CIT(E). The rejection was based on grounds including an incomplete Form 10AB, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and non-genuineness of activities. The appeals were filed after a delay of 11 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals. For the application under Section 12AB, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to allow the appellant an opportunity to remove deficiencies. For the application under Section 80G, it was also restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after affording an opportunity, as its rejection was contingent on the 12AB registration.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G by the CIT(E) was justified, and whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 80G(5)(iii)
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 Bench This common order is to dispose of the above captioned 2 appeals, as the same arise out of the same facts. 2. Vide one order dated 29.11.2024, Learned CIT(E) rejected application u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), thereby rejecting the prayer of the applicant for its registration under the Act.
& 180/JPR/2025 Shri Ramdas Seva Sansthan Pranyas vs. CIT(E) 3. Vide separate order of even date i.e. 29.11.2024, Learned CIT(E) also rejected the application filed by the applicant institution seeking approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act.
Feeling aggrieved by the above said two orders, the Institution is before this Appellate Tribunal.
Arguments heard. Files perused.
Learned CIT(E) passed two orders dated 29.11.2024. Vide one order application u/s 12AB of the Act, came to be rejected on the following three grounds:- Incomplete Form 10AB. Non-Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Non-Genuineness of activities and non compliance.
Vide separate order of same date, another application filed u/s 80G of the Act came to be rejected on the ground that for want of registration of the applicant under section 12 AB of the Act, no approval under section 80G could be granted.
At this stage, it may be mentioned here that both the appeals came to be filed after a delay of 11 days. Separate applications seeking condonation of delay came to be filed. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the Secretary of the charitable & 180/JPR/2025 Shri Ramdas Seva Sansthan Pranyas vs. CIT(E) institution-applicant could not furnish reply to the notices issued by Learned CIT(E), which led to rejection of the two applications vide two impugned orders, but, the secretary came to know of the impugned orders only on checking the portal of the department.
The Secretary of the applicant has submitted his own affidavit to the effect that he being not conversant with the process of operation of computer, could not know about issuance of notices and even about passing of the impugned orders.
Ld. DR for the department has not controverted the testimony of the Secretary on affidavit.
Having record to the issues involved in the applications filed by the applicant Institution, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay of 11 days in filing of each appeal. It is ordered accordingly.
Coming to appeals on merits, as is available from the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) rejected the application u/s 12AB of the Act.
-As regards application u/s 12AB of the Act- Non registration of the applicant under RPT Act, 1959 and Incomplete Form 10AB & 180/JPR/2025 Shri Ramdas Seva Sansthan Pranyas vs. CIT(E) 13. In the impugned order, while dealing with application u/s 12AB of the Act, Learned CIT(E) has described as to in what manner the said application uploaded in Form 10AB was incomplete and also that the applicant did not remove the said deficiencies despite notices.
As already noticed above, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the secretary of the appellant could not know about the notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(E), as he was not acquainted with the process of operating a computer.
In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to Learned CIT(E) so as provide an opportunity to the appellant to remove the deficiencies in the application. Non Genuineness of Activities 16. In para 4 of the impugned order, as regards the application u/s 12AB of the Act, Learned CIT(E) has specified the details not provided by the applicant, despite notices.
Ld. AR for the appellant does not dispute non compliance of the said notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(E), but seeks one opportunity to comply with directions so that the application is effectively adjudicated on merits, taking into consideration entire relevant material.
& 180/JPR/2025 Shri Ramdas Seva Sansthan Pranyas vs. CIT(E) 18. Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the remand of the matter to Learned CIT(E) so as to provide another opportunity to the appellant of being heard. Non registration of the applicant under RPT Act, 1959 19. This is yet another ground of rejection of the application under section 12 AB of the Act. 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. Result 20. As a result, this appeal in is disposed of for statistical purposes and the application u/s 12AB of the Act is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh after affording another opportunity to the applicant of being heard.
& 180/JPR/2025 Shri Ramdas Seva Sansthan Pranyas vs. CIT(E) Having regard to the number of opportunities already granted, and also keeping in view non compliance on the part of the applicant before Learned CIT(E), applicant is burdened with costs of Rs. 1000/-. Costs to be deposited by the applicant with “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and receipt to be submitted before Learned CIT(E) before commencement of the proceedings on remand.
As regards rejection of application under section 80G of the Act.
As noticed above, application u/s 80G of the Act came to be rejected on the ground that the application u/s 12AB of the Act stood rejected vide separate order passed by Learned CIT(E) for the reasons recorded therein. As noticed above, the application u/s 12AB of the Act has been restored to the files by Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant of being heard. Consequently, this appeal is also disposed of for statistical purpose, and application u/s 80G of the Act is also restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant.