DHAMMA ASHOKA MEMORIAL TRUST VIRATNAGAR,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-applicant trust filed on online application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 18.03.2024. A letter/notice dated 13.06.2024 was issued at the e- mail/address provided in the application requiring the assessee to submit certain documents/explanations by 21.06.2024. In compliance thereof, the assessee furnished part reply. In response, the assessee furnished part reply. Ld. CIT(E) considered the reply with annexure and found that the assessee noteligible for the registration as the assessee applicant was not registered under Rajasthan Public 4. Whereas in the application for recognition u/s. 80G of the Act, was rejected on the ground that the assessee was not granted registration u/s 12AB of the Act and therefore, recognition u/s 80G of the Act was also rejected. 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 in support of contention filed a detailed paper book containing followingevidence:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Form No. 10AC 1-2 2. Trust deed 3-14 3. Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2024-25 15-16 4. Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2023-24 17-18 5. Income Tax Return for A.Y. 22-23 19-20 6. Income Tax Return for A.Y. 21-22 21-22 7. Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2024-25 23-33 8. Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2023-24 34-44 9. Income Tax Return for A.Y. 22-23 45-50

1 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 registered under RPT Act. The assessee has applied the registration under RPT Act and the proof of the same bearing dated 07.02.2025 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. 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 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 Dhamma Ashoka Memorial Trust Viratnagar vs. CIT(E) the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E). In light ofthe 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.