SAHSHTRAKOOT VIGYAATEERTH,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 14/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 February 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the applicant to cure defects rather than outright rejection. The grounds for rejection related to the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, activities outside India, and beneficiary community were set aside. The ground of non-genuineness was also set aside with a direction for the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The appellant filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application on five grounds, including non-maintainability due to a missing valid provisional certificate, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, provision for activities outside India, activities/beneficiaries for a particular community, and non-genuineness of activities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB on the grounds cited, without providing adequate opportunity for the applicant to rectify defects and present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A,Section 11(1)(c),Section 13

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 19/02/2025Pronounced: 19/02/2025

per object clauses 4(i) to (iii) of the Trust deed said activities of the applicant Trust are for the benefit of Jain community only. He further observed that from the said objects, it was noticed that the applicant wanted to restrict activities of Bed and Food only for Jain Sadhus-Ratnatrya Dharak Sadhus.

19.

Learned AR for the appellant has submitted that in view of the objects as contained in the Trust deed, its objects are religious and charitable in nature.

20.

Admittedly, at the time of grant of provisional registration to the applicant, though on an application filed under incorrect provision of law, expression “Religious cum Charitable” was used, at this stage, it cannot be said that activities of the applicant are restricted to any particular community.

21.

On this issue, Learned CIT(E) referred to the provisions of section 13 of the Act. In this regard, suffice it to state that applicability of provisions of section 13 is not to be seen at the time an applicant seeks registration under section 12 AB of the Act. Therefore, the 2 decisions relied on by learned CIT(E) in this regard do not come to the aid of the department. the application is also set aside.

Non Genuineness of activities

23.

Learned AR for the appellant has submitted that for the purposes of verification of genuineness of activities, few details were asked by Learned CIT(E) to be submitted on or before 5.11.2024, as per notice, but the applicant sought adjournment. Further, it has been submitted that no reasonable opportunity was granted to the applicant in this regard, and rather, the application was rejected. Therefore, he submits that matter needs reconsideration after taking into account all the requisite details, which the applicant would make available.

24.

As noticed above, applicant had sent request for adjournment from 5.11.2024, but the impugned order followed on 13.11.2024. Having regard to the nature of the details, we deem it a fit case where the applicant should be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. With these observations, the ground for rejection of the application is set aside, but Learned CIT(E) to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard, to the applicant.

25.

In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision on the application afresh, except the issues finalized herein, of course, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant, and that too in accordance with law.

1.

Applicant-appellant to comply with all the directions of Learned CIT(E) issued from time to time to avoid any delay in the disposal of the application.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19 /02/2025.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →