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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 14/JP/2025

Sahshtrakoot Viggaateerth
A-803 Ashadeep Green Avenue,
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABFTS 4497 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajeev Sogani.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing

: 19/02/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 19/02/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant is feeling aggrieved by the rejection of its application presented u/s 12AB of Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 13.11.2024
passed by Ld. CIT(Exemption).
2. Application was submitted on 04.05.2024, u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii), in Form
No. 10AB.
3. Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application on the following five grounds:

2
• Premature/Non-maintainable application without valid provisional certificate
• Non-registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959
• Provision for activities outside India
• Activities/Beneficiaries are for particular community
• Non-Genuineness of Activities.
4. Arguments heard. File perused. We proceed to discuss the submissions put forth by Learned AR for the appellant and Learned DR for the Revenue as regards each ground of rejection of the application under section 12 AB of the Act.
Non-maintainability of application for want of a valid provisional certificate
5. Vide impugned order, Ld. CIT(E) was of the view that the applicant had no valid provisional certificate. As observed by the CIT(E), from the bank statement submitted by the applicant, it was found to have commenced activities w.e.f. 19.12.2023, but, the applicant had obtained provisional registration under item- A of sub clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section 1 of section 12A of the Act.
6. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that due to inadvertent mistake, the applicant could not apply for provisional registration, referring to the correct provision of law.

3
In this regard, Ld. AR for the appellant has further submitted that it being a curable defect, Ld. CIT(E) should have allowed the applicant to remove said deficiency instead of dismissing its prayer for registration u/s 12AB of the Act, on the aforesaid ground.
7. In the course of arguments, Ld. DR for the department has not controverted the submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant that while submitting application for provisional registration, the applicant-trust had selected wrong provision of law.
8. In the given situation, ld. CIT(E) should have afforded opportunity to the applicant for removal of the said defect and, thereafter, proceeded to dispose off of the application u/s 12AB of the Act, instead of making the said defect a ground for rejection of said application.

In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to Learned CIT(E) to afford opportunity to the applicant to do the needful in this regard i.e. for removal of defect by applying under the relevant or correct provision of law.

Non-registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959

4
9. Admittedly, initially applicant-trust was not got registered under RPT
Act, 1959, Ld. AR for the appellant has drawn our attention to page No. 25
of the paper book, which is photocopy of certificate of registration of the trust under RPT Act.
Said certificate is dated 05.11.2024. The impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E) is dated 13.11.2024. Having regard to the date of issuance of certificate dated 05.11.2024, we have inquired from Ld. Counsel for the appellant as to why the same was not produced before Ld. CIT(E) during the pendency of the application.
10. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that actually on 5.11.2024, the applicant had sought adjournment in the proceedings before Learned
CIT(E), but he proceeded to reject the main application vide order dated
13.11.2024. 11. Available in the paper book, at page No. 50 is copy of communication from the assessee to the office of Ld. CIT(E) seeking adjournment on 05.11.2024. 12. Even otherwise, Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur Benches has held in case titled as APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust,

5
ITA No. 567/JPR/2024, decided on 15.01.2025, that for the purposes of registration u/s 12AB of the Act, registration of such like applicant under RPT Act, 1959 is not one of the essential requirements.
13. The fact remains that even though the application was rejected vide order dated 13.11.2024, the applicant Trust had got itself registered as per certificate dated 5.11.2024. In view of said certificate, said ground of rejection no more survives.
Provision for activities outside India
14. While making said ground as basis for rejection of the application u/s 12AB, Ld. CIT(E) has observed that as per provisions of section 11(1)(c) of the Act income applied on activities outside India is not eligible for exemption unless CBDT has vide general or speaking order granted exemption, but the applicant did not furnish any such order from CBDT granting said exemption.
15. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that clause No. 4(iii) of the Trust deed enables the appellant trust to connect and associate with institutions, having similar objects, situated within or beyond India.

6
At the most, it would be within the domain of the Assessing Officer to take into consideration any such activity carried outside India, for the purposes of grant or denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act, during assessment proceedings.
In this way, Ld. CIT(E), while taking into consideration said object clause, for the purpose of registration of the appellant-trust under the Act, can safely said to have exceeded the scope of inquiry.
17. In view of the above discussion, this ground raised by Learned CIT(E) for rejection of the application is hereby set aside.
Activities/Beneficiaries for a particular community

7
18. In para 5.1 of the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) observed that as 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
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. ¼xxu xks;y ½

¼ujsUnz dqekj½

(GAGAN GOYAL)

(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 19 /02/2025
*Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Sahshtrakoot Vigyaateerth, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 14/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत