OUTSPREAD WINGS FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”

2 In ITA No. 1473/JPR/2024 the assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional approval and nor issued Show Cause Notice for rejection of provisional approval u/s. 80G of the I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.

That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional approval u/s. 80G without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular & notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.

That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur by rejecting provisional approval u/s. 80G of the 1.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.

That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”

3 In ITA No. 1474/JPR/2024 the assessee has raised following grounds:-

That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”

4 In ITA No. 1475/JPR/2024 the assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional registration and nor issued Show Cause Notice for rejection of provisional registration u/s. 12A of the L.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.

That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional registration u/s. 12A without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular & notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.

That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur by rejecting provisional registration u/s. 12A of the L.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.

That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”

The facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee “Outspread Wings Foundation”, filed online application under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.05.2024. A letter/notice dated 02.07.2024 was issued at the e-mail/address provided in the application requiring the assessee to submit certain documents/expenses by 19.07.2024. The details/documents filed by the assessee were examined and it was found by the ld. CIT(E) that the assessee was not eligible for the registration u/s 12AB, due to discrepancies considered for non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and Non- Genuineness of activities and thereby the application for registration was dismissed while doing so he has also cancelled the temporary registration granted to the assessee. Whereas in the case of the application filed by the assessee for registration u/s 80G (5) of the Act the same Outspread Wings Foundation vs. CIT(E) was rejected as the assessee was not granted the registration u/s 12AB of the Act and here also the temporary recognition granted was also cancelled. 4. The assessee challenges that orders before this Tribunal on the ground as stated hereinabove. As regards the nonregistration under RPT Act, 1959, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is registered u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 vide registration No. U85500RJ2023NPL086593 dated 28.03.2023. The ld. AR of the assessee stated at bar that recently the ld. CIT(E) taken a view that in case of Company registered u/s 8 of the Act as the charitable entity, he has waived that aspect of the registration under RPT Act. Therefore, the assessee needs a chance to represent this fact before the Ld. CIT(E). So far as the observation for non genuineness of the activity, it was argued that the assessee has provided all the details which was called for , but the Ld. CIT(E) was of the view that certain curial information were not given and adjournment was sought on that aspect of the matterconsidering the misconception that without RPT Act, assessee may not get the registration and therefore that crucial details were not submitted but adjournment was sought . The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that there should be given a fair chance with the merits of the disputes and thereby prayed to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E). 5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that the assessee remain non-compliant before the ld. CIT(E) and therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(E) be sustained. 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Bench noted that there is a force in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee that the Ld. CIT(E) has taken a view that where the assessee is a charitable entity registered under Companies Act, ld. CIT(E) has already taken a view that RPT Act registration cannot be enforced onceassessee registered with the