Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
M/s ECR Foundation The CIT-Exemption, Vs. Main Chopanki Near Power House, Jaipur. Bhiwadi, Alwar. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AABTE1792N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri R.S. Poonia, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :24/02/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The present appeal is filed by the assessee challenge the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [herein after referred to as “CIT(E)”] dated 16.03.2023 thereby rejecting the registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short “Act”).
M/S ECR Foundation vs. CIT(E) 2. The assessee has raised following ground: - “
1.That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur by rejecting application u/s 12AB(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the assessee.
2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”
Brief facts of the case are that the application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was the assessee-applicant online filed by on 30.09.2022. A letter/notice dated 02.01.2023 was issued at the e- mail/address provided in the application requiring the assessee-applicant to submit certain documents/explanations by 17.01.2023, but no compliance was made by the assessee-applicant. Thereafter, a reminder letter was issued notice No. dated 19.01.2023 to submit certain documents/explanations by 06.02.2023. However, again no further compliance was made by the assessee-applicant. In this connection, the assessee-applicant had again requested for adornment through e- filing portal dated 06-02-2023. Therefore, a letter was issued notice 15-02-2023 herein dated of hearing was fixed on 02-03-2023, but again the assessee-applicant has requested for adornment. In view of principle of natural justice, one more opportunity was provided to the assessee-applicant dated 09-03-2023 as final opportunity through which date of submission was fixed as 14.03.2023. But this M/S ECR Foundation vs. CIT(E) time also on given date no reply was filed by the assessee-applicant. Since it is a limitation matter, therefore, the case is decided on the basis of material filed by the assessee-applicant along with its application in Form no. 10AB.While dealing with the application for registration the ld. CIT(E) has passed the order by observing as under:- Incomplete form 10AB. Non registration with RPT Act, 1959. Genuineness of activities.
Aggrieved from the above order of the ld. CIT(E) the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order. In addition, Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that their application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected only on account of the fact that the assessee-applicant non registeredunder RPT Act. The assessee has applied the registration under RPT Act and the proof of the same bearing dated 17.10.2023 placed on record. Based on that application so filed, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee should be given one chance to consider the merits of the registration of the assessee-applicant trust.
Per contra, ld. DR replied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(E) and stated that the assessee was not registered under RPT Act as on the date of application and therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(E) be sustained.
M/S ECR Foundation vs. CIT(E) 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Bench observes that the sole reason for rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. CIT(E) was the fact that the applicant-assessee trust was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act (RPT Act). It is further noted that the assessee has already initiated the process and applied for registration under the RPT Act, thereby rendering the defect pointed out by the Ld. CIT(E) as curable in nature.
In view of the above, and considering the principle of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that the issue of registration under Section 12AB of the Act ought to be reconsidered afresh in light of the registration under the RPT Act, as and when obtained by the assessee. Accordingly, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall be afforded due opportunity to produce relevant documents including the registration certificate under the RPT Act or any other material necessary to support its claim for registration under Section 12AB.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) shall not be construed as any expression on the merits of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/4/2025.