Loading judgment…

Krishna Nadini Gaudham Charitable… vs ITO | s.12AA, 12AB | ITAT Jaipur 2025 | BharatTax

KRISHNA NADINI GAUDHAM CHARITABLE TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOTA

ITA 490/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 February 2025Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee trust filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(E) rejecting their applications for registration under Section 12AB and exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected the applications citing incomplete forms, issues with Rajasthan Public Trust Act, and genuineness of activities.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for registration under the RPT Act and was likely to obtain it. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to decide after the assessee provides the RPT Act registration and other required documents.

Key Issues

Whether the rejection of registration under Section 12AB and exemption under Section 80G by the CIT(E) was justified based on the provided grounds, and if an opportunity should be granted for submission of further documents.

Sections Cited

12AA, 12AB, 80G, 12A, 80G(5)(iii), 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B)

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 vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 488 & 489/JP/2024

Hearing: 12/02/2025

ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These three appeals filed by the assessee are against two different orders of the Ld.CIT (Exemption), Jaipur dated 27-02-2024 and 28-09- 2023 passed under section 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the above mentioned appeals are as under:-

KRISHNA NANDINI GAUDHAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS ITO, WARD 2(1), KOTA U/S 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961 ‘’ That the order passed by the ld. CIT(E),Jaipur by rejecting application u/s 12AB(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same. ITA NO. 489/JP/2024 U/S 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961

1.

That the ld. CIT(E), 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 Act which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly restore the same.

2.

That the ld. CIT(E), 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 and notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly restore the same.

3.

That the order passed by ld CIT(E), Jaipur by rejecting provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly restore the same.

U/S 80G of I.T. Act, 1961 2. That the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by rejecting the application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the appellant.

2. That the delay of 39 days in filing of appeals was due to as there are many recent changes in trust related laws as:- 3. Therefore, after taking legal advice on the situation and not allow to re-applying for approval u/s 80G of the Act to the assessee trust decided to file the appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench. Hence, the time taken in process of wait of reply or legal advice regarding whether the remedy is re- apply or filing of appeal in our case 4. That the delay in filing appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench was due to time taken in process of legal KRISHNA NANDINI GAUDHAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS ITO, WARD 2(1), KOTA advice taken for re-apply and technical glitches on the Income Tax Portal and the same is considered as reasonable cause for delay in appeal filing before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench In view of above submission, you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delayof 139 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(E), Jaipur, so that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant.’’ 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and submitted that the Court may decide it as deemed fit and proper in the case of the assessee. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noted that there is no force in the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee as to the conodonation of delay in filing the above appeal. Hence, the Bench does not find sufficient cause whereby the assessee was prevented in late filing the appeal. Thus the applications for condonation of delay made by the assessee is dismissed. However, the Bench feels that with a view to providing the substantial justice to the assessee, the appeal is heard on merit. 3.1 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in and 489/JP/2024, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act by observing as under:-

3.2 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in the ld. CIT(E) has withdrawn the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’2 In response to the above, the applicant has requested for withdrawing the application vide dated 21-09-2023 for approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has stated as under:- ‘’…….We request you that assessee-society is not registered under DevasthanVibhag and the same is mandatory for registration under Income Tax Act provisions. So, we are withdrawing the application for permanent registration of society u/s 12AB & 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961.’’ KRISHNA NANDINI GAUDHAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS ITO, WARD 2(1), KOTA 3. In the light of the above facts and applicant’s request to withdraw the aforementioned application for approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section(5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the applicant’s application for approval under clause(iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961is hereby withdrawn.’’ 3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus the orders should be quashed being ex- parte orders and against the principles of natural justice. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee stated at Bar that the assessee trust is in the process of applying the registration under RPT Act before the competent authority and it is likely to get the same. Conclusively, the ld AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee trust may be provided one more opportunity to the contest the case before the ld CIT(E) and restore the appeals to the file of ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication as the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(E) 3.4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E). 3.5 After hearing both parties and perusing the materials available on record, we noticed that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act on following grounds:-  Incomplete Form 10AB It is also noticed that the ld.CIT(E) has cancelled the provisional registration of the assessee for the reason that the assessee trust had failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration. It may be noted that the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee trust has applied for registration under RPT Act, 1959 before the competent authority and the assessee trust is likely to get the same. . Therefore, in these circumstances, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with the direction that as and when the assessee trust produces the copy of the Registration under RPT Act, 1959 then the application of the assessee trust for registration u/s 12AA of the Act be decided afresh in accordance with law. The assessee trust is also directed to produce the complete Form 10AB and produce the documents relating to the genuineness of the activities before the ld CIT(E) 3.6 Since we have restored the appeals of the assessee with regard to the registration u/s 12AA of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication, therefore, the outcome of appeals of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act are consequential in nature.