SANKIRTANA MOVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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.

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.

That the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by rejecting the provisional approval u/s 80G 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 approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.

1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 38 days in appeals u/s 12A and 39 days delay in appeals u/s 80G of the Act for which the ld.AR of the assessee has filed an application dated 28-01- 2025 for condonation of delay in connection with above mentioned appeals narrating therein as under:- ‘’1. That the assessee trust filed 4 appeals on 010-06- 2024 against the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(E), Jaipur on rejection of registration u/s 12A and rejection of approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 with a delay of 39 days. Simultaneously, by the same rejection orders the ld CIT(E), Jaipur cancelled the provisional registration / approval granted by the PCIT/CIT,CPC, hence total 4 appeals were filed, which are as follows:-

That the delay of 39 days in filing of appeals was due to as there are many recent changes in trust related laws as:-

That thereafter after taking proper legal advice that the proper remedy with us is to file appeal before ITAT, we engager a counsel and prepare appeal and filed the same before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 01-06-2024 (i.e. with a delay of 39 days)

Therefore, the delay in filing of appeal was due to confusion of non-clarity about the exact and right legal remedy available to the trust viz. reapply or appeal. Therefore, the same can be treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal.

Further 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Thus, it is clarified that applicant’s provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24-03-2023 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also lapsed and cancelled.

2 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 839 & 840/JP/2024, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’03. In view of above discussion assessee’s claim of approval u/s 80G is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds:-

Further 2nd proviso to Section 80G(5) also state that if CIT is not satisfied has to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier approval . Thus, it is clarified that applicant’s provisional approval under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24-03-2023 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional approval, thus with this order provisional approval is also lapsed and cancelled.’’ 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  Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959  Genuineness of Activities. 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. 3.7 Order pronounced in the open court on 04 /02/2025 ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½