DEVNARYAN GAUSHALA SAMITI ,BEAWAR KHAS vs. CIT EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION

PDF · subscribers
ITA 70/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 April 2024AY 2024-25Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that notices were issued to the assessee, but they were sent to the email address provided by the previous AR. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission, supported by an affidavit from the previous AR, that due to preoccupation with CMA exams, the AR could not attend to the notices or inform the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the negligent act of its AR. It was concluded that the assessee was deprived of natural justice before the CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication de novo, with liberty to the CIT(E) to take appropriate action if the assessee fails to cooperate in the remanded proceedings. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Devnarayan Gaushala Samiti, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur, dated 13/12/2023. The CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB. The reasons cited by the CIT(E) were an incomplete application, failure to submit the registration certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, and non-compliance, which prevented the verification of the genuineness of the trust's activities. The assessee society was registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, and the Rajasthan Gaushala Act, 1960, and had a provisional registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) for AY 2023-24 to 2025-26. The CIT(E) had issued notices, but the assessee contended these were sent to an incorrect email address belonging to a previous Authorized Representative (AR).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the registration granted under Section 12AB without affording sufficient and proper opportunity to the assessee, as per Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration granted under Section 12AB while deciding on the application for approval under Section 80G and treating the assessee as foreign. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notices issued by the CIT(E) were sent to an incorrect email address (aadts6780q@gmail.com) belonging to their previous AR, and no copy was served to the assessee. An affidavit was filed by the previous AR stating preoccupation with CMA exams led to non-compliance and failure to inform the assessee. The assessee relied on its registration certificates and provisional registration under Section 12A. The assessee contended that the non-compliance was due to the negligence of the AR and that the assessee should not suffer for it, thus being deprived of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the assessee was given sufficient time on three occasions to submit the required details but failed to do so. Therefore, the CIT(E) rightly rejected the claim for registration, and the assessee deserves no relief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI,

Hearing: 07/03/2024Pronounced: 29/04/2024

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 70/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2024-25 cuke Devnarayan Gaushala Samiti, CIT Vs. Beawar Khas VIA Beawar Exemption, District Ajmer, Ajmer Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTD 5800 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mukesh Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/03/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

The present appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur dated 13/12/2023 [here in after (ld. CIT(E)] vide which the registration of the assessee trust under section 12AB was rejected. While rejecting the application the ld. CIT(E) noted that the application of the assessee was not complete, assessee has not submitted the registration certificate under Rajasthan Public Trust Act and non- compliance on the part of the assessee and therefore, the ld.CIT(E) could of the ld. CIT(E) the present appeal of the assessee.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -

“1. That the ld. CIT is not justified in law and on facts of the case in rejecting the registration granted u/s 12AB without affording sufficient and proper opportunity. 2. That the ld. CIT is grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in rejecting the registration granted u/s 12AB while deciding on the application for approval u/s 80G and treating the assessee as of foreign.”

3.

Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is a society registered with Registrar of Societies, Ajmer under Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 since 1/11/2002 vide Registration No. 119/Ajmer/2002-03. That the assessee is registered with Directorate of Gau Sewa, Pashu Palan Vibhag, Rajasthan, Jaipur under Rajasthan Gaushala Act, 1960 since 13/06/2014 too. That the assessee was provisionally registered u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) on 27/1/2023 for period of AY 2023-24 to 2025-26 by PCIT, CPC.

4.

That the ld. CIT(E) made the order rejecting the assessee’s claim u/s 12AB by referring assessee’s so called application for approval u/s 80G and treating the assessee as Foreign as given in his addresses in the opportunities, but the assessee has not complied and thus in the absence of the requisite details the ld. CIT(E) could not verify the genuineness of the activities carried out by the assessee and based on that set of facts the application for registration u/s. 12AB was rejected based on the fact that the application of the assessee was not complete, assessee has not submitted the registration certificate under Rajasthan Public Trust Act and non-compliance on the part of the assessee and therefore, the ld. CIT(E) could not verify the genuineness of the Activities of the trust. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(E) is reiterated here in below :

“However, the application has failed to comply with the letters, despite being given three opportunities details of which given in para-

1. 1. In the absence of such details, it could not be determined whether the applicant is genuinely carrying out charitable activity as per its objects. Therefore, the application’s claim of registration u/s 12AB is also liable to be rejected on ground of not proving its genuineness of activity.

05. In view of above discussion assessee’s claim of registration section 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds:- • Incomplete Form 10AB • Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. • Genuineness of Activities & Non-compliance.”

5. Feeling dissatisfied the assessee has preferred this appeal on the grounds as reiterated here in above para 2. To support the various grounds so raised the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is kept on record. The ld. AR of the assessee on email address to aadts6780q@gmail.com which does not belong to the assessee but belongs to his previous AR. (paper book page no. 22) and there was not copy served to the assessee. The assessee in support of this contention filed an affidavit of his authorized representative submitting that the ld. AR due to his personal occupation in the CMA exam he did not find attention and in turn could not inform the assessee also. In support of the contentions so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records:

Dated Authority PAGE s No PARTICULARS before/by NO. whom it was filed/issued

1-14 1 Registered Constitution with Registrar of Societies Ajmer CIT(E 1/11/200 CIT(Exempti 15 2 Registration Certificate 2 on 13/6/2014 3 Registration with Directorate of Gau Sewa, Pashu Palan 16 Vibhag Rajasthan, Jaipur 27/1/23 Online 4 Form 10AC for registration u/s.12A 17-18 27/1/23 Online 5 Form 10AC for Approval u/s.80G(4) 19-20 20/12/22 21 6 Notice of Devsthan Vibhag for 27/2/2023 Online 22 7 Site print out of.Email Address where notice sent 23/1/24 8 Affidavit of Previous AR 23-24

6.

Per contra, the ld. DR representing the revenue categorically submitted that the assessee was given sufficient time of submitting the requirement of registration and therefore, ld. CIT(E) has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee for registration and therefore, the assessee do not deserves any relief.

7.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. It is not disputed that there notices were issued to the assessee but the same was on the address given by the ld. AR of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee filed the proof that he was issued the notice and CC was not marked to any other email id of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that as he was preoccupied for his CMA exam he could not inform or reply the issue of the notice. The content of the facts filed on affidavit suggest that the for the negligent act of the ld. AR of the assessee, the assessee should not suffer. The assessee by filling the affidavit of the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the burden of non-compliance has valid reason the assessee is deprived of the natural justice before the ld. CIT(E). Thus, on careful consideration of the facts of the case available on record we are of the considered view that the assessee is deprived of the justice and therefore, we are of the view that the assessee in the interest of principles of natural justice be given an opportunity of being heard by the ld. of the assessee. Therefore, we see no harm in providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In case, however, if the assessee even in this remand proceeding does not fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of remanded proceedings, learned CIT(E) will be at liberty to take such action as deems fit and proper and judicious. The matter is thus restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for adjudication de novo after affording yet another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, by way of a speaking order, and in accordance with the law. Ordered, accordingly.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms of observations as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2024.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29/04/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Devnarayan Gaushala, Ajmer izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT (Exemption), Jaipur 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →