Loading judgment…
Facts
Two assessees, Shri Ram Gau Seva Samiti and Shri Sitaram Gaushala Samiti, filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(E) cancelling their provisional registration. The CIT(E) cited reasons such as incomplete form 10AB, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and non-genuineness of activities.
Held
The Tribunal found that the orders of the CIT(E) were passed ex-parte without considering the assessees' submissions. It was noted that the assessees had subsequently obtained the required registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and the Societies' Act. The Tribunal decided to remand the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the cancellation of provisional registration by the CIT(E) was justified without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, and if the subsequent attainment of registration cures the defects.
Sections Cited
12AB(1)(B)(ii)(B), 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEESHRI RAM GAU SEVA SAMITI vs SHRI
O R D E R Per Bench: These two appeals by different assessees were filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Exemption, Jaipur *in short, ‘Ld.CIT(E)] passed under section 12AB(1)(B)(ii)(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) date of order 29/11/2024, in case of Shri Ram Gou Seva Samiti Keriya Makda Shri Ram Gau Seva Samiti, Keriya Makda& ITA 953/jodh/2024 Shri Sitaram Gaushala Samiti, Village Gunsali (Kiroda) and under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act date of order 23/12/2024rejecting earlier provisional registration granted to the assessee trusts date of order 29/11/2043.
Both the appeal carry identical issue, therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order.
TA No.26/JODH/2025 3. The reasons for cancelling the provisional registration granted to the assessee by the Ld.CIT(E) are that – (i) Incomplete form 10AB; (ii) Non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959; and (iii) Non-genuineness of activities and non-compliance by the assessee trust. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.
The Ld.AR filed a written submission containing pages 1-16, where the assessee submitted that the assessee is a charitable trust and is engaged in charitable activities of gau seva and vide registration No.182/NAGAUR /2002- 2003 granted under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 Act, 1958 and finally, the assessee received the registration certificate under RPT Act on 21/05/2025. But the Ld.CIT(E) without allowing the reasonable opportunity, rejected the application for regular registration. The copy of certificate from Rajasthan Public Trust Department is enclosed in APB pages 5 & 6.
The Ld.CIT(DR) fully relied on the order of the revenue authority. In our considered view, we find that the order was passed by the Ld.CIT()E) exparte. The reasons for rejecting the application was without considering the submission of the assessee. Finally, the assessee received the registration certificate under RPT Shri Ram Gau Seva Samiti, Keriya Makda& ITA 953/jodh/2024 Shri Sitaram Gaushala Samiti, Village Gunsali (Kiroda) Act on 21/05/2025 and the assessee filed its regular return and also registered under the Societies’ Act, on 15/01/2003. We find that the reasonable opportunity to the assessee was denied. In our considered view, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for further adjudication, de novo. We are not expressing our view on merit of the case, which will impair the set aside proceedings before the Ld.CIT(E). Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside proceedings.
ITA No.953/JODH/2024 6. The facts and circumstances in this appeal are almost identical to ITA 26/Jodh/2025, except in this case, provisions of section 12A()1)(ac)(iii) of the Act are applicable. The Ld.CIT(E) cancelled the provisional registration because of non-registration under RPT Act, 1959; and non-genuineness of activities. Therefore, the decision arrived at above on the appeal in is applicable mutatis mutandis to this appeal also.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees bearing & 953/JOSH/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th day of May, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jodhpur, दिन ांक/Dated: 29/05/2025 Pavanan