SHRI DIGAMBAR JAIN SAMAJ SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 754 & 755/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :
Shri Digambar Jain Samaj Samiti
D-62 Kaushlya Path Shyam Nagar,
Jaipur.
cuke v.
The CIT (Exemption),
Jaipur.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABKAS3162M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A, &
Shri Harshit Agarwal, C.A.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
:28/01/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
On 29.03.2024, Learned CIT(E), Jaipur, has dismissed an application u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), filed by the applicant-samiti, thereby rejecting its prayer for its registration under the Act. The prayer has been rejected on the following two grounds:-
Due to non registration of the applicant under Rajasthan PublicTrust
Act, 1959. The assessee having failed to prove genuineness of activities in which it is stated to be involved.
2. Vide same order, Learned CIT(E) cancelled the provisional registration of the applicant-Samiti under sub clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A of the Act.
Hence, the first mentioned appeal -ITA No.754/JP/2024. 3. Another appeal-ITA No. 755/JPR/2024 has also been filed by the applicant, feeling aggrieved by order dated 29.03.2024, passed by Learned
CIT(E) whereby application of the assessee seeking approvalu/s 80G of the Act has been rejected on the following four grounds:-
Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB.
Religious Trust are not eligible u/s 80G(5).
Expenditure incurred for religious purposes.
Commencement of activities.
4. At the same time, provisional approval already granted to the applicant under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, has also been cancelled.
5. This common order is to disposed off both the above captioned appeal, as Learned AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department have argued the same together, as common questions are involved.
6. Arguments heard. Files perused.
The applicant-appellant claims itself to be a public charitable society.
It was incorporated on 23.10.1996 and on the same day got registered under RPT Act, 1959. 7. As per copy of the Constitution (Rules) of the applicant samiti, it was constituted with the following objects:-
“"Ůाचीन िदगɾर जैन ŤȺों का संचय व िजणŖȪार करना, सावŊजिनक उपयोग के
िलए भवन, ̾थानािद का िनमाŊण करना, जन उपयोगी औषȨालय साधुओं के ठहरने
का ̾थान, Ůवचन हॉल, उपयोगी सािहȑ का Ůकाशन कराना, वाचनालय की
̾थापना (भारत गणराǛ के समˑ जन-पदों मŐ िनवास करने वाले सवŊ-समाज) के
सभी वगŖ के सवाŊगीण िवकास के िलए Ůयȉ करना, सुसंगिठत, सुिवकिसत एवं
सुसंˋृत बनाना तथा सामािजक चेतना के िलए समाज के िविभɄ वगŘ मŐ एकŝपता
एवं सौहादŊ भावना हेतु Ůयȉ करना। िदगɾर जैन तीथŊ Ɨेũ व मंिदरािद Ůमुख ŝप
से एवं अɊ धमŘ के ̾थानों का सुŮबɀ करना एवं समˑ धमŊ एवं अɊ जाितयों के
अिधकारों की रƗा करना, युवक, मिहला, आिद समाज के िविभɄ अंगों के िवकास
के िलए युवा मंच, मिहला सिमित का गठन करना।"
Non registration of the Samiti under RPT Act, 1959
8. Admittedly, the applicant society was not registered under RPT Act,
1959. Learned CIT(E) made it one of the grounds for refusing registration of the applicant under Income Tax Act,.
Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that registration of the applicant Samiti under RPT Act is not one of the requirements for its registration under the Income Tax Act . In support of his contention, Ld. AR has relied on a decision by the Co-ordinate Bench of Jaipur Benches, in ITA No. 567/JPR/2024, APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust v. CIT(E),delivered on 15.01.2025. The contention is that in view of said decision, the impugned order as regards this ground of rejection deserves to be set aside.
9. In the above cited case, the applicant trust was refused registration under section 12AB of the Act and one of the grounds was non registration of the applicant-appellant under RPT Act, 1959. While dealing with the issue of registration under RPT Act, the Co- ordinate Bench has observed as under:-
“3. The assessee submitted before us the copy of application filed online before the DevasthanVibhag, Rajasthan vides dated: 22.09.2024, as required by the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur. Although the requirement of obtaining registration with the DevasthanVibhag, Rajasthan as per the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is really required or not in the context of section 12AB (1) (b) (ii) (b) of the Act, is a matter raised before us by the counsel of the assessee and certainly a question of law to be decided by us in the coming paras of this order considering the provisions of section 12AB (1) (b) (ii) (B) of the Act, Judicial Pronouncements relied upon by the Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur. For sake of clarity and ready reference we are reproducing herein below the relevant provisions of section 12AB of the Act as under:
Procedure for fresh registration.
12AB. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on receipt of an application made under clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, shall, —
(a) Where the application is made under sub-clause (i) of the said clause, pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution for a period of five years;
(b) Where the application is made under sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) [or item (B) of sub-clause (vi)] of the said clause, —
(i) Call for such documents or information from the trust or institution or make such inquiries as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy him about—
(A) The genuineness of activities of the trust or institution; and (B) the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects;
(ii) after satisfying himself about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities under item (A) and compliance of the requirements under item (B), of sub-clause (i), —
(A) Pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution for a period of five years; or (B) If he is not so satisfied, pass an order in writing, —
(I) in a case referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (v) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration;
(II) In a case referred to in sub-clause (iv) or in item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
4. The relevant provisions reproduced (supra) in bold and underlined, is an attempt by us to analyze the provision in proper perspective of Law in the light of Judicial Pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court, specifically the citations being relied upon by the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur, i.e. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 46 (A.P.)
Aurora Educational Society vs. CCIT, relevant paras are reproduced as under:
“10. The scope and amplitude of section 10(23C) (vi) of the Income-tax Act, the provisos there under and the rules and forms applicable thereto, which were the subject-matter of examination in New Noble Educational Society vs. Chief
CIT [2011] 334 ITR 303/201 Taxman 33/ 12 taxmann.com 267(AP) and in R. R.
M. Educational Society vs. Chief CIT [2011] 339 ITR 323 (AP) can, conveniently, be summarized as under:
1. As section 20A of the A. P. Education Act prohibits individuals from establishing educational institutions, it is only societies/associations/ trusts which can establish educational institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh.”
“19. On a conjoint reading of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 8 of the A.
P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, it is only when the amendment to the objects of a society (educational agency) is intimated and the