ASOKA TAKNIKI AND VYA vs. AYIK TRANING INSTITUTE CHIPABROD,JAIPURVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1415/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 February 2025AY 2024-257 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the primary reason for rejecting the Section 12AB registration was the assessee's lack of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, as of the application date. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee has since obtained this registration. Considering these facts, the Tribunal found the reasons for rejection to be curable. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter of Section 12AB registration to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, to be decided based on the assessee producing the RPT Act registration. Similarly, since the Section 80G recognition was denied solely because of the Section 12AB rejection, the Tribunal also restored the matter of Section 80G recognition to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashoka Takniki And Vyavsayik Training Institute Chipabrod, filed applications for registration under Section 12AB and recognition under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)], Jaipur, rejected both applications by orders dated 30.09.2024. The rejection for Section 12AB registration was primarily based on the assessee not being registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and engaging in business activities (contract receipts for Indira Rasoi Yojana) beyond its charitable objectives, rendering its activities non-genuine. The rejection for Section 80G recognition was a consequence of the denial of 12AB registration. The assessee appealed these orders to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(E) erred in denying registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the assessee was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and was engaged in business activities beyond its charitable objectives? - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that it has since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Regarding business activities, it contended that the observations were curable, the receipts were contractual, and even if considered business, a portion of the income could be treated as such, citing the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. The assessee prayed for another opportunity. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the order of the CIT(E), stating that the assessee was not registered under the RPT Act as on the date of application, and thus the order should be sustained. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(E) erred in denying recognition under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the denial was solely based on the rejection of Section 12AB registration? - Assessee's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implicitly linked to the appeal against the 12AB rejection. - Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implicitly linked to the appeal against the 12AB rejection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT
Hearing: 18/02/2025Pronounced: 28/02/2025

ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The present of two appeals filed by the assessee challenges the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [herein after referred to as “CIT(E)”] both dated 30.09.2024 thereby rejecting the registration under section 12AB of the Act and recognition u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) respectively.

1.

& 1415/JPR/2024 Ashoka Takniki And Vyavasayik Traning Institute Chipabrod vs. CIT(E) 2.1 In the assessee has raised following grounds: - “

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in denying the approval to the assessee u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961.

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application of approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the technical grounds, such action being absolutely unjustified, unlawful as well as against the concept of natural justice hence the order passed by Ld CIT (E) deserves to be quashed.

3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in further rejecting the provisional approval previously granted to the assessee u/s 80G of the Act, such action being illogical and irrational hence deserves to be set aside.

4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that appellant trust was not able to substantiate the genuineness of activities which is absolutely incorrect. Appellant prays rejecting the application without considering or rebutting the documents and without considering material facts filed before the Ld CIT (E) being bad in law and in violations to the principles of natural justice deserves to be rolled back.

5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that appellant trust was doing business activity in the garb of charity being completely baseless, invalid and illogical hence deserves to be set aside.

6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that appellant trust was doing activity beyond the objective of the trust being completely incorrect and void, hence deserves to be quashed.

7. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, modify, or alter any ground or grounds of appeal.” the assessee has raised following grounds: - “

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in denying the final approval to the assessee u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act 1961.

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application of final approval u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the technical grounds, such action being absolutely unjustified, unlawful as well as against the concept of natural justice hence the order passed by Ld CIT (E) deserves to be quashed.

& 1415/JPR/2024 Ashoka Takniki And Vyavasayik Traning Institute Chipabrod vs. CIT(E) 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in further rejecting the provisional approval previously granted to the assessee u/s 12AB of the Act, such action being illogical and irrational hence deserves to be set aside.

4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that appellant trust was not able to substantiate the genuineness of activities which is absolutely incorrect. Appellant prays rejecting the application without considering or rebutting the documents and without considering material facts filed before the Ld CIT (E) being bad in law and in violations to the principles of natural justice deserves to be rolled back.

5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that appellant trust was doing business activity in the garb of charity being completely baseless, invalid and illogical hence deserves to be set aside.

6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that appellant trust was doing activity beyond the objective of the trust being completely incorrect and void, hence deserves to be quashed.

7. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, modify, or alter any ground or grounds of appeal.”

3.

Brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed an online application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 21.03.2024. The assessee was issued a letter/notice dated 17.06.2024 requesting it to furnish certain documents/explanations by 26.06.2024, but no compliance has been made by the assessee. The assessee-applicant submitted its point wise reply vide dated 22.08.2024 which was thoroughly examined on record & found some discrepancies. These discrepancies were conveyed to the applicant vide show cause letter dated 06.09.2024 wherein date of hearing was given 13.09.2024. In response, the applicant-assessee had failed to furnish its reply on the above show cause. After & 1415/JPR/2024 Ashoka Takniki And Vyavasayik Traning Institute Chipabrod vs. CIT(E) perusing of show cause notice and its reply ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee is not registered under Rajasthan Public Trust act, 1959. The assessee doing business income in the grab of the charitable activity beyond its object as the income on account of contract receipt towards Indira Rasoi Yojna neither fall in donation contribution grants or concession and therefore, Ld. CIT(E) is doing business activity beyond the scope of charitable activity. Considering that findings of the ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee is doing non genuine activity and therefore, the application for 12AB of the Act was rejected by the ld. CIT(E).

4.

Whereas in the application u/s. 80G of the Act, was rejected only on the reason that since the assessee is not registered u/s 12AB cannot be given to the assessee.

5.

Aggrieved from the above order of the ld. CIT(E) the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal challenging both the orders. The ld. AR of the assessee as regards non registration under RPT Act stated that the assessee trust giving the registration vide certificate dated 24.01.2025. As regards other observation on the business as well non genuineness of the activity. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that of observation made by the ld. CIT(e) are curable in nature merely receipt are having contractual in nature. The assessee trust cannot be considered as engaged in the business activity and even if the same is considered that portion that part of the income can be considered as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court & 1415/JPR/2024 Ashoka Takniki And Vyavasayik Traning Institute Chipabrod vs. CIT(E) in the case of Ahemdabad Urban Development Authority. Considering that aspect of the matter, ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be given one more chance to defend the merit of the case.

6.

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.

7.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. The Bench noted that the only reason in rejection of the registration of the applicant-assessee trust was that the assessee was not registered under RPT Act and therefore, the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected. The Bench noted that since the assessee has already applied for registration under RPT Act and thereby the reasons advance for rejecting the registration of the applicant-assessee trust are curable in nature. Considering that aspect of the matter, the Bench feels that the issue of registration u/s 12AB of the be decided a fresh, based on the registration under RPT Act to be produced by the assessee. Therefore, we restore the matter of the registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) be decided afresh. The Bench also noted that recognition u/s 80G of the Act was denied because the applicant-assessee trust was not registered u/s 12AB of the Act. Since we have restored the matter of & 1415/JPR/2024 Ashoka Takniki And Vyavasayik Traning Institute Chipabrod vs. CIT(E) registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) and therefore, we also deem it a fit case to restore the matter of recognition u/s 80G of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E). In light of the aspect of the case both the matters are restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(E).

8.

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in & 1415/JPR/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/02/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28/02/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रति लिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Ashoka Takniki and Vyavsayik Traning Institute Chipabrod, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →