KISHAN BABA GHO SEWA SAMITI ,NAGAUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 297/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 March 2025AY 2022-23Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'ble Vice President, Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'ble (Accountant Member)
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals and that the CIT DR had no objection. Consequently, all three appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

Three assessees filed appeals against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)'s order rejecting their application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. During the hearing, the assessees' counsel submitted an application requesting to withdraw all the appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals challenging the rejection of registration under section 12AB should be allowed to be withdrawn by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR.

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Honble, & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Honble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhawsinghka, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri O.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Hearing: 05.03.2025Pronounced: 17/3/2025

1. Shree Jeevdaya Go Seva Samiti, Nagaur. PAN No. ABTAS0375D. Vs. CIT (Exemption), Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302015.

2. Kishan Baba Gho Sewa Samiti Kaletara, Nagaur. PAN No. AAGAK6371B.

3. Shri Ram Gaushala Gau Seva Samiti, Nagaur. PAN No. ABEAS8055K Assessee by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhawsinghka, Advocate Revenue by: Shri O.P. Meena (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing: 05.03.2025. Date of Pronouncement: 17/3/2025 ORDER Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

1.

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to "the CIT Exemption"] challenging therein rejection of their application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act (In short 'the act').

2.

At the outset, the learned Counsel of the assessee, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Bhawsinghka submitted separate application on 05.03.205, for withdrawal of the captioned appeals, stating therein identical facts that "However my client now visits to withdraw the sad appeal which is currently pending before your honourable bench." One of the applications filed in respect of Jodh 2024 is reproduced for ready reference as under:

To, The Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jodhpur Sir, Sub: Withdrawal of Income Tax Appeal. Ref: Appeal No. ITA 296/JOD11/2024 Respected Sir, With reference to the above-mentioned appeal, I have been instructed by my client to submit as follows:

Being aggrieved by the impugned rejection order passed by the CIT (Exemption), Jaipur, under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appellant institute had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. However, my client now wishes to withdraw the said appeal, which is currently pending before your Hon'ble Bench.

Accordingly, this letter may kindly be considered as my client's formal application for the withdrawal of the above mentioned appeal.

In light of the above, I respectfully request your Hon'ble Bench to allow the withdrawal and pass the necessary order granting the same.

I shall remain ever grateful for this act of kindness.

Thanking You, Yours sincerely, (Rajesh Kumar Bhawsinghka) For Shree Jeev Daya Gau Seva Samiti

3.

The Ld. CIT DR has no objection to the request of the AR.

4.

Accordingly, all these three appeals in 297 and 298/Jodh/2024 are dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced on..1.

7. /03/2025 under Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963.

(RAJPAL YADAV) VICE PRESIDENT (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DOC* Dated: 1.

7.

/03/2025 Copies to:

(1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →