SHIV SHANKER GOYAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES, “ B ” JAIPUR
JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJhujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1370/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2024-25
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATS 4020 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Sunil Porwal, CA (Thru’ V.C.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 20/03/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement :
21 /03/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Vide impugned order dated 21-09-2024, the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur rejected prayer of the appellant- applicant made in the application u/s 12AB of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’), submitted online on 26-06-2024. 2. The application has been rejected on the following two grounds:
(i)
Non-registration of applicant under Rajasthan Public Trust Act,
1959, and;
2
Non-genuineness of the activities of the applicant .
3. Arguments heard. File perused.
Incorporation of the Trust-appellant
4. The applicant-a charitable trust- is stated to have come into existence on 19-
03-1991 with certain charitable objects, including construction and management of Dharamshalas, Water huts, Hospitals, Clinics, Research Centers, Educational
Institutions, for patients, travelleres and general public.
Other charitable activities find mentioned in trust deed of the applicant trust.
5. The ld. AR for appellant has submitted that said trust having been registered u/s 12A(a) of the Act on 19-03-1991, in order to comply with amendments made by Finance Act, 2021, the applicant had to apply a fresh, and that is how, the applicant was submitted before the ld. CIT(E), but the same has been rejected.
First Ground of Rejection
6. As regards the first ground of rejection of the application i.e. non registration under RPT Act, 1959, the ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that even though earlier the appellant Trust was not got registered under RPT Act, subsequently, steps were taken and presently, the trust stands registered. In this regard, Learned
AR has relied on copy of certificate of registration of the appellant trust under RPT Act, 1959, issued on 17-01-2025. 3
8. The impugned order was passed in Sept. 2024. At that time, admittedly, the applicant trust had not got registered itself under the RPT Act, 1959. However, since the appellant- applicant has certificate of registration under the said Act, same needs to be produced before the ld. CIT(E) for perusal and further necessary action.
However, for the purposes of present appeal, this Ground No. 1 made basis for rejection of registration of the applicant, does not survive.
Second Ground of Rejection
9. As regards the second ground of rejection i.e. non-genuineness of the activities, we find from the impugned order that applicant trust was directed by the ld. CIT(E) to furnish certain information and documents, but, the applicant did not submit complete information/ documents.
As observed in para 3.2 of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(E) observed certain discrepancies in the information that much was provided. Therefore, for purpose of due verification of genuineness of its activities, ld. CIT(E) issued show cause notice dated 7-09-2024 calling upon the applicant trust to produce documents, which find mentioned at page 14 of the impugned order.
4
The applicant trust replied to the above said show cause notice on 14-09-
2024, but, the ld. CIT(E) observed that such issues emerged thereform, that the genuineness of the activities of the applicant trust could not be verified or determined, particularly having regard to the objects of the trust as specified in the trust deed.
10. In the course of arguments, the ld. AR for the appellant submits that applicant be provided another opportunity to clarify all the remaining issues involved, by remitting the matter to the ld. CIT(E).
11. ld. DR for the Department has also referred to the deficiencies observed by the ld. CIT(E) in the impugned order, as a result whereof he could not determine genuineness of the charitable activities of the applicant trust, and submitted that the ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application.
At the same time, the ld.DR has no objection to the prayer for remitting the matter to the ld. CIT(E) by providing another opportunity to the applicant to make good the deficiencies pointed out there, for proper adjudication of the issues involved.
12. As a result, we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to the ld. CIT(E) for decision of the application of the appellant trust afresh by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant –appellant to furnish all the requisite documents and information before the ld. CIT(E), without fail.
5
Order pronounced in the open court on 21 /03/2025. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21 /03/2025
*Mishra, Sr. PS
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Shiv Shanker Goyal Charitable Trust, Ajmer
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The CIT (Exemption), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1370/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत