UMMAT HUMAN HELP SANSTHA AJMER,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This four appeals by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur dated 20.03.2024 passed u/s. 12AB (1) (b) (ii) (B) and 80G (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal vide ITA Nos. 854/JPR/2024 as under: 2
1
That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption,
Jaipur by rejecting application 12AB (1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.
That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 1 That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), 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 I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.
That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), 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 & 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. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur by rejecting provisional registration u/s. 12Aof the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.
That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 1 That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur by rejecting 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.
That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional approval and nor issued Show Cause Notice for rejection of provisional approval u/s. 80G of the I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same.
That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional approval u/s. 80G without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular & 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. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Jaipur by rejecting provisional approval u/s. 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.
That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.
All the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 19 days, to explain and justify the delay, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit dated: 10.09.2024. The assessee also filed screen shots of hearing notices on which same were issued, i.e. sonuarifkhan786@gmail.com. It is submitted by the assessee that this e-mail id was not in operation and rather primary e-mail address for communication was vconsultantllp@gmail.com and acc.ibirds@gmail.com was the trustee’s personal email-id as furnished with the application filed in Form No. 10AB.
None of these email-ids were there, while sending notices for communication by the department and rather all the communication was sent on sonuarifkhan786@gmail.com. After a long time of filing of application for permanent registration u/s. 12AB and approval u/s. 80G in Form No. 10AB, the members of the society personally visited the office of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur and came to know about the rejection order. We have gone through the contents of the affidavit also and the same were there before the Ld. CIT, DR also, but there was no challenge from their side also on the contents, hence the same is accepted and delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust applied in Form No. 10AB of the Act vide dated: 27.09.2023. After considering the replies of the assessee in response to the notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur, application of the assessee was dismissed on following grounds: A). Not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (RPT) and B). Genuineness of Activities. In addition to the above, provisional registration granted earlier u/s. 12A (1) (ac)(vi) of the Act vide dated: 28.02.2023 is also cancelled. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred the present appeal before us. We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur alongwith the submissions of the assessee and paper book submitted before us. 3. The assessee submitted before us the copy of registration issued by the Devasthan Vibhag, Rajasthan vide dated: 13.03.2024, as required by the Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur. Although the requirement of obtaining registration with the Devasthan Vibhag, 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 5
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 himself 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.
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 summarised 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