ITAT Jaipur Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee before rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A. The order was passed ex parte after only one opportunity was given. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided that the assessee's application should be reconsidered by the CIT(E) after giving a due opportunity of hearing. The Ld. DR also agreed to this course of action. Consequently, the application was restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(E) was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that despite the assessee filing a letter on January 27, 2026, addressing all the deficiencies and providing the necessary information regarding its registrations under Section 12A and 80G, and its activities, the CIT(E) did not take cognizance of this reply. Furthermore, the CIT(E) rejected the application as deficient without issuing a show cause notice to the assessee, thereby denying them a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue of grant of registration under Section 12AB back to the file of the CIT(E) to be considered afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order rested on a single ground: the application was incomplete for want of the certificate of registration under section 12AA of the Act held before 01.04.2021. No adverse findings were recorded on other essential aspects required under section 12AB(1)(b). The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including an affidavit and an order under section 154, which supported the assessee's claim of prior 12AA registration. The Tribunal noted that the absence of the original certificate with the assessee cannot be conclusive if departmental records confirm the registration. Following its own coordinate bench decisions in Bai HirabaiManchersha Gilder Charity Trust and Shri Ramkrishna AyurvedikAushdahalayaParmarthi Trust, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The application was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to verify the prior 12AA registration from departmental records. If confirmed, the application should not be treated as incomplete. The CIT(E) was then directed to examine the application on merits as per section 12AB(1)(b). The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT (Exemption) was without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was also noted that the rejection was based solely on technical grounds without commenting on the genuineness of the activities carried out by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the order was passed without granting reasonable time for compliance and in disregard to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the CIT (Exemption) were technical and procedural in nature, which were curable. Therefore, the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the CIT (Exemption) afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that a registration under Section 12A should not be denied on purely technical grounds without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering the substantive charitable nature of the assessee's activities.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue solely based on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, which had been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Tej Partap Singh and others. The Supreme Court's order remitted the matters to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration, stating that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity, or applicability of the amended provisions. As the Ld. CIT(A) had not given a decision on merits and the basis of its decision was set aside, the Tribunal considered it fit to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2018-19, the assessee proved sale/purchase of Rs. 33,98,41,064 inside the mandi. However, the sale/purchase of Rs. 3,75,09,510 outside the mandi was not substantiated with any evidence before the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in treating this amount as trading receipts and estimating profit at 8%. Instead, this amount of Rs. 3,75,09,510 was held to be income from unknown sources and required to be taxed accordingly. For the mandi sales of Rs. 33,98,41,064, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 6% as per the license, as the 8% rate was not justified. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal agreed with the AO and CIT(A) that the total credit of Rs. 3,30,96,598 in the bank account could not be treated as turnover, especially since the assessee failed to provide evidence, file returns, and its books were rejected. This amount was considered income from unknown sources and to be taxed under the relevant provisions. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was partly allowed, and the appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application on the ground of non-maintainability was not sustainable. It noted that the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac), effective from October 1, 2024, allowed the Commissioner to condone delays if there was a reasonable cause. The CIT(E) had failed to consider this aspect. Regarding the genuineness of activities, the Tribunal acknowledged that the Assessee had not furnished the requested details, contributing to the situation. However, it referred to a coordinate bench's observation distinguishing between a positive finding of non-genuineness and a failure to establish genuineness due to inadequate evidence. Given that the first ground of rejection required reconsideration, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to examine the genuineness of activities afresh. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, including consideration of the delay condonation and the genuineness of activities. The cancellation of provisional registration was also set aside to be decided afresh. The Assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish details. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the application.

The Tribunal held that the primary ground of rejection, which was the delay in filing the application, could not be sustained. The Tribunal noted that a proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, effective from 01.10.2024, allows the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to condone delays if there is a reasonable cause. The learned CIT(E) did not consider this proviso before deeming the application infructuous. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(E)'s order incorrectly referred to a valid provisional certificate as a prerequisite for an application under sub-clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac), whereas the assessee's application was under sub-clause (iii). Regarding other grounds, such as observations on the objects clause, revision of NOC, mismatch in activities, and non-furnishing of beneficiary/donor details, the Tribunal found these to be relevant but intertwined with the issue of limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the file of the learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision, allowing the CIT(E) to re-examine all aspects, including the condonation of delay under the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac). The cancellation of provisional registration was also set aside to be decided afresh. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the application.

The Tribunal held that the omission to furnish the prior registration certificate under Section 12AA was a deficiency in the manner of presentation, capable of being cured, and did not go to the substantive eligibility of the assessee. It distinguished between defects in substantive eligibility and those in the manner of presentation, citing Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha. Regarding the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, the Tribunal noted that compliance with other laws is a relevant consideration under Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B). However, it found that the CIT(E) had not examined the objects or genuineness of the assessee's activities. The Tribunal agreed with the reasoning in Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha that if the process for curing a deficiency (like pending registration under the RPT Act) has been set in motion, the application should be preserved rather than rejected outright. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh decision, allowing the assessee to submit the certificate of registration under the RPT Act if obtained, and the earlier registration order. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the application. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that while compliance with the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, is a relevant consideration for the CIT(E) under Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Act, the outright rejection of an application due to a deficiency that is in the process of being cured requires consideration on a case-by-case basis. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act on 25.03.2026, which was the day after the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s observation regarding the inadmissibility of an appeal before the Tribunal by an unregistered trust was beyond the scope of his proceedings and disregarded it. The Tribunal also referred to a coordinate bench decision which held that in cases where the process for curing a deficiency has been set in motion, the application should be preserved, and the assessee given an opportunity to submit the certificate upon issuance, rather than compelling fresh registration proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, allowing the CIT(E) to examine all aspects, including the status of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act application and the arrangement with the JDA. The assessee was directed to provide the relevant documents. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the application.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee before rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that only two opportunities were given, which was insufficient. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's application back to the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration after providing a due opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the denial of approval under Section 80G, which was based on the lack of Section 12A registration, was also set aside and restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration along with the Section 12A application. The ratio decidendi is that an applicant must be given a fair and adequate opportunity to present their case before an authority rejects their application, especially when statutory registrations and approvals are sought. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Tribunal noted that the rejection was primarily based on the non-submission of the registration certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and an allegedly incomplete Form 10AB. While the assessee provided evidence of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and claimed Form 10AB was complete, the Tribunal found that the situation, regardless of the specific reasons for rejection, amounted to a failure to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) and directed the CIT(E) to pass fresh orders after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant was directed to appear before the authority to place on record the requisite documents. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2018-19, the assessee proved sale/purchase of Rs. 33,98,41,064 inside the mandi. However, the sale/purchase of Rs. 3,75,09,510 outside the mandi was not substantiated with any evidence before the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in treating this amount as trading receipts and estimating profit at 8%. Instead, this amount of Rs. 3,75,09,510 was held to be income from unknown sources and required to be taxed accordingly. For the mandi sales of Rs. 33,98,41,064, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 6% as per the license, as the 8% rate was not justified. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal agreed with the AO and CIT(A) that the total credit of Rs. 3,30,96,598 in the bank account could not be treated as turnover, especially since the assessee failed to provide evidence, file returns, and its books were rejected. This amount was considered income from unknown sources and to be taxed under the relevant provisions. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was partly allowed, and the appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 2, finding the Revenue's grievance about admitting additional evidence without opportunity to the AO well-founded but not causing prejudice. The Tribunal noted that the AO had already verified the bank statements, and the financial statements confirmed the source of funds for time deposits. A remand for the AO to verify what was already established would serve no purpose. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs 7,51,93,000. It reasoned that money moved between the assessee's own bank accounts to create a term deposit, where both accounts and the deposit are reflected in its financial statements, cannot be characterized as unexplained money under Section 69A. The source of time deposits was explained. For cash deposits of Rs 68,20,817, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A) had sustained the addition under normal provisions, not under Section 69A. The CIT(A)'s reservations related to the adequacy of the explanation, not that the cash was outside the books. The deposits were in the assessee's disclosed account, and the Receipt and Payment Account showed receipts under the relevant heads. The AO never found the money unrecorded. Thus, the condition for Section 69A was not met, and the assessee had not appealed the sustenance of the amount. The Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s direction on this amount or the interest. Ground No. 3 concerning the power to set aside was dismissed as academic. The CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to examine the exemption claim was left undisturbed as it did not disturb any sustained addition and the Revenue was not prejudiced. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld in its entirety.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act solely on the grounds of non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and incomplete Form 10AB. The Tribunal reasoned that registration under the RPT Act is not a mandatory prerequisite for obtaining registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the deficiencies in the application form were curable and that the CIT(E) ought to have granted the assessee an opportunity to rectify them. The Tribunal relied on various High Court pronouncements which have held that such procedural defects should not lead to outright rejection without affording a chance for correction. The ratio of this decision is that procedural irregularities or non-compliance with state-specific registration requirements, which are not explicitly mandated by the Income Tax Act for Section 12A registration, should not be the sole basis for rejection, and an opportunity to cure such defects should be provided. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application after giving the assessee an opportunity to furnish the required documents.

The Tribunal considered the submission made by the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee. The learned AR stated that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal before the Bench. In light of this submission, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction is that the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. The issue of whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB on the grounds of incomplete form and non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, was not adjudicated upon.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were not sustainable in the eyes of law. The primary reason for this decision was that the appellant had not been provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. While the CIT(E) rejected the applications on grounds of incomplete Form 10AB and non-registration under the RPT Act, 1959, the assessee's representative claimed that all documents were submitted and no further notice was received. The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of these contentions, found that the lack of adequate opportunity rendered the orders invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after providing the appellant with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue solely on the basis of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of ITO Vs. Tej Partap Singh and others, has set aside the order passed by the Jurisdictional High Court and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to pass an order by 30.09.2026. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity, or applicability of amended provisions, leaving all such questions open for the High Courts to decide. Given that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits and the basis of its decision (the High Court order) has been set aside, the Tribunal found it fit to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that while compliance with other laws, such as the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, is a relevant consideration under Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Act, the outright rejection of an application solely on the ground of a deficiency in this regard, especially when the process of curing it is underway, requires careful consideration of the facts. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had applied for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, which was under process. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, which bars the hearing and deciding of a suit by an unregistered trust, does not render an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal inadmissible. In the interest of justice, and considering that the substantive claim of the Assessee had not been examined, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the Assessee to cooperate fully. The impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision. The CIT(E) was directed to examine all aspects, call for necessary documents, and pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal before the Bench. Considering this submission, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Therefore, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the rejection of the registration application by the learned CIT(E). The specific findings or reasoning on the issues of incompleteness of the application or the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, were not reached due to the withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee before rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that only two opportunities were given, which was insufficient. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's application back to the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration after providing a due opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the denial of approval under Section 80G, which was based on the lack of Section 12A registration, was also set aside and restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration along with the Section 12A application. The ratio decidendi is that an applicant must be given a fair and adequate opportunity to present their case before an authority rejects their application, especially when statutory registrations and approvals are sought. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were made without due consideration of the facts already on record and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT(E) had noted deficiencies in the applications, specifically that the assessee needed to be registered/approved earlier under Section 12AB and Section 80G(5) to be eligible for the applications filed. However, the assessee contended that they were indeed registered/approved, and this information was available in departmental records and on the departmental website. The Tribunal found it fit to restore the issues back to the file of the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications after giving the assessee a due opportunity of hearing and considering the facts already on record. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A was justified. The primary reason for rejection was the assessee's failure to be registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which is a prerequisite for registration under Section 12A. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the incomplete application form (Form 10AB) and the non-furnishing of mandatory documents, including copies of existing registrations and the instrument of creation or establishment. Consequently, since the 12A registration was denied, the approval under Section 80G, which is contingent upon 12A registration, was also rightly denied. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the CIT(E). The operative direction was to uphold the orders of the CIT(E), meaning the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had erred in passing the impugned orders without considering the detailed reply dated 10.06.2025 filed by the assessee, which had an e-acknowledgement. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had marked 'No Reply' and proceeded to deny registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. In the interest of the principles of natural justice, and given that all necessary details were already filed before the CIT(E) but not considered, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, consider all the submissions filed, and then pass fresh orders granting registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G as per the provisions of law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had erred in passing the impugned orders without considering the detailed reply dated 10.06.2025 filed by the assessee, which had an e-acknowledgement. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had marked 'No Reply' and proceeded to deny registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. In the interest of the principles of natural justice, and given that all necessary details were already filed before the CIT(E) but not considered, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, consider all the submissions filed, and then pass fresh orders granting registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G as per the provisions of law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were not sustainable in the eyes of law. The primary reason for this decision was that the appellant had not been provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. While the CIT(E) rejected the applications on grounds of incomplete Form 10AB and non-registration under the RPT Act, 1959, the assessee's representative claimed that all documents were submitted and no further notice was received. The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of these contentions, found that the lack of adequate opportunity rendered the orders invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after providing the appellant with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the denial of registration by the CIT(E) without considering the replies and documents filed by the assessee, specifically the e-acknowledgements dated 06.02.2026 and 10.02.2026, was against the Principle of Natural Justice. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E)'s file. The CIT(E) was directed to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass an order for registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G(5) of the Act, provided the assessee cooperates by filing all required documents and details. The ITAT allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the denial of registration by the CIT(E) without considering the replies and documents filed by the assessee, specifically the e-acknowledgements dated 06.02.2026 and 10.02.2026, was against the Principle of Natural Justice. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E)'s file. The CIT(E) was directed to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass an order for registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G(5) of the Act, provided the assessee cooperates by filing all required documents and details. The ITAT allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A was justified. The primary reason for rejection was the assessee's failure to be registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which is a prerequisite for registration under Section 12A. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the incomplete application form (Form 10AB) and the non-furnishing of mandatory documents, including copies of existing registrations and the instrument of creation or establishment. Consequently, since the 12A registration was denied, the approval under Section 80G, which is contingent upon 12A registration, was also rightly denied. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the CIT(E). The operative direction was to uphold the orders of the CIT(E), meaning the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Tribunal noted that the rejection was primarily based on the non-submission of the registration certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and an allegedly incomplete Form 10AB. While the assessee provided evidence of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and claimed Form 10AB was complete, the Tribunal found that the situation, regardless of the specific reasons for rejection, amounted to a failure to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) and directed the CIT(E) to pass fresh orders after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant was directed to appear before the authority to place on record the requisite documents. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, considered the submission made by the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Assessee. The learned AR stated that the Assessee wished to withdraw the present appeal because the Assessee had subsequently been granted registration under section 12A of the Act by the learned CIT(E) via an order dated 17.09.2026. In light of this submission, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No finding was made on the merits of the original rejection by the learned CIT(E) as the appeal was withdrawn by the Assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was based solely on the incorrect sub-clause selected by the Assessee. It was clarified that an institution holding provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) should apply for regular registration under sub-clause (iii). The application form (Form No. 10AB) is the same for both. The Tribunal agreed with the coordinate bench decision in Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha v. CIT (Exemption) that a defect in the manner of presenting the application, such as selecting an incorrect clause, is curable and should not foreclose examination of the substantive claim. The application should be examined as one under sub-clause (iii). The Tribunal noted the insertion of a proviso allowing condonation of delay by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner if there is reasonable cause. The CIT(E) was directed to examine all aspects, including the time limit and condonation of delay, and to consider the application as one made under the appropriate clause. The Assessee was allowed to rectify the form and furnish documents. The CIT(E) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the application. Ground 1.2 was allowed for statistical purposes as the matter was restored due to a curable defect, but the Assessee was cautioned against making a grievance of want of opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were made without due consideration of the facts already on record and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT(E) had noted deficiencies in the applications, specifically that the assessee needed to be registered/approved earlier under Section 12AB and Section 80G(5) to be eligible for the applications filed. However, the assessee contended that they were indeed registered/approved, and this information was available in departmental records and on the departmental website. The Tribunal found it fit to restore the issues back to the file of the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications after giving the assessee a due opportunity of hearing and considering the facts already on record. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that both grounds raised by the Revenue were devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT. This judgment clarified that when incriminating material seized during a search belongs to or relates to a person other than the one searched, proceedings under Section 153C are to be initiated, not under Section 147/148. The Tribunal found that the AO had not presented any material other than that seized during the search of the Manihar Group to initiate proceedings under Section 148. The argument that Section 148 is not rendered otiose by the enactment of Sections 153A to 153D was considered, but the Tribunal reiterated that on fulfillment of the conditions for invoking Section 153C, the AO must proceed accordingly. The Tribunal also observed that the Hon'ble High Court had distinguished the Supreme Court case of M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Ltd., stating that the issue of interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in cases of seized material belonging to third parties was not before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment order had treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 6,88,000/- as income without considering the cost of acquisition, indexed cost of acquisition/improvement as per Section 48. The assessee had provided a Registered Valuer's report for ascertaining the cost of acquisition and construction during rectification proceedings, which was not considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal found this to be against the provisions of Section 48. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with another opportunity for a hearing and to pass a fresh order after computing the capital gains by considering the cost of acquisition and allowing the deduction under Section 54B, subject to verification of relevant records. The assessee was cautioned to utilize this final opportunity effectively.

The Tribunal held that the claim for set-off of brought forward losses for AY 2012-13 was allowable. While the assessee did not dispute the revised return being non-est, the Tribunal noted that courts have consistently held that lawful claims can be entertained at the appellate stage even if not made in the original or revised return. The reliance on M/s Goetze India Pvt. Ltd. by the revenue was deemed misplaced as it pertained to the AO's powers, whereas the principle of allowing claims at the appellate stage, as laid down in NTPC and other cases, was applicable. Therefore, the CIT(A) was bound to allow the claim. Regarding the amounts transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's contention. Based on government guidelines, particularly a letter clarifying that the surplus would not be the corporation's income and that the assessee was a mere custodian, the Tribunal held that these amounts did not constitute the assessee's income. The assessee had no control over the utilization of these funds, and therefore, they could not be considered income. Ground No. 2 for AY 2012-13 was allowed, and by extension, Ground No. 1 for AY 2013-14 was also allowed.

The Tribunal found that the property was purchased by the assessee and her husband as co-owners, and an agreement for construction was executed for Rs. 62,50,000/-. While the AO treated the investment cost as Rs. 96,66,000/- based on seized material, the developer's partner later filed a retraction statement within 48 hours stating the cost was Rs. 62,50,000/-. The assessee also provided bank statements and sources of investment. The Tribunal noted that the AO made the entire addition in the assessee's hands without considering her husband's share. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the jurisdictional AO for a fresh order after giving the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The AO was also directed not to invoke section 115BBE for the assessment year, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Deepak Maratha (supra). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,20,799/- is liable to be deleted from the hands of the assessee. This is because the Punjab National Bank account statement of M/s Makarr Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. clearly shows that on March 6, 2021, this amount was transferred by NEFT to Agarwal Enterprises, as evidenced by the bank statement and ledger account. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the remaining cash amount of Rs. 56,754/- is also not correctly added in the hands of the assessee. It was admitted that the image was found from the accountant's mobile phone and was in the name of 'Robin Ji', not the assessee. Therefore, this addition is also liable to be deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the application filed by the assessee before the ROC for amending the Articles of Association, deemed it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is expected to cooperate by filing all required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(E) for passing an order of registration under Section 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee for statistical purposes. The specific findings on each ground of appeal were not elaborated as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the application filed by the assessee before the ROC for amending the Articles of Association, deemed it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is expected to cooperate by filing all required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(E) for passing an order of registration under Section 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee for statistical purposes. The specific findings on each ground of appeal were not elaborated as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The assessment was done under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order did not refer to any seized material found during the search as the basis for the additions. The CIT(A) had followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd., which were considered clearly applicable to the facts of the case. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any seized material found during the search and seizure that formed the basis for the impugned additions. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were found to be devoid of merit. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO, as they were not based on incriminating material unearthed during the search, and such additions could have been made by the AO in reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148. The AO was at liberty to take any action as per the prevailing legal position.

The Tribunal considered the submission regarding territorial jurisdiction and referred to the territorial jurisdiction notification and Standing Order No. 01 of 2021 issued by the Hon'ble President, ITAT. This standing order stipulates that appeals arising from orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur, are exclusively cognizable by the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed before the Jaipur Bench was not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before the Jaipur Bench, with liberty granted to the assessee to file an appropriate appeal before the Jodhpur Bench in the manner prescribed by law. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the appeal was dismissed on a procedural ground.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(E) had recorded that notices were served, but the appellant denied service of summons. To ensure the cause of justice, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to one more opportunity to be heard on merits. The appellant had also filed the registration issued under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) was set aside. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the matter afresh, providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed by the assessee against the appellate order dated 21.02.2025, which arose from a reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The brief facts indicate that the assessee, engaged in trading building material, declared an income of Rs. 3,72,460 for AY 2014-15. Information received by the department suggested the assessee purchased an immovable property on 05.07.2013 for Rs. 1.5 crores with stamp duty expenses of Rs. 11,73,850, with the assessee's share being Rs. 80,86,925. However, the judgment does not record any arguments from either the assessee or the revenue regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings or the reassessment order itself. Consequently, the Tribunal did not decide on the issues presented or provide any reasoning or operative directions. The judgment is incomplete as it does not contain the substantive decision of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the claim for set-off of brought forward losses for AY 2012-13 was allowable. While the assessee did not dispute the revised return being non-est, the Tribunal noted that courts have consistently held that lawful claims can be entertained at the appellate stage even if not made in the original or revised return. The reliance on M/s Goetze India Pvt. Ltd. by the revenue was deemed misplaced as it pertained to the AO's powers, whereas the principle of allowing claims at the appellate stage, as laid down in NTPC and other cases, was applicable. Therefore, the CIT(A) was bound to allow the claim. Regarding the amounts transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's contention. Based on government guidelines, particularly a letter clarifying that the surplus would not be the corporation's income and that the assessee was a mere custodian, the Tribunal held that these amounts did not constitute the assessee's income. The assessee had no control over the utilization of these funds, and therefore, they could not be considered income. Ground No. 2 for AY 2012-13 was allowed, and by extension, Ground No. 1 for AY 2013-14 was also allowed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had produced documents like the cash book and bank statements by invoking Rule 46A. It also noted the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) being dropped, indicating that the assessee could not be termed non-cooperative. However, the Tribunal observed that the AO's entire addition of Rs. 31,95,750/- as cash deposits was not permissible under the law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by filing all relevant materials and documents before the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal decided to take up grounds 2 and 3 first, as they go to the very root of the assumption of jurisdiction. The record establishes that both directors of the assessee company were disqualified under section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, for failure to file its financial statements. Consequently, the company's name was struck off the register by the Registrar of Companies. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised grounds 2 and 3, which were identical to those decided in its favour by a co-ordinate bench in its own case for assessment year 2017-18 (S.S. Diam Private Limited v. ITO, ITA No. 1131/JPR/2024, dated 10.09.2025). The co-ordinate bench had held that once a company is struck off and dissolved, no assessment proceedings can be initiated or continued against it. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the assessee's contention that the assessment was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide grounds 1, 4, and 5, as the issue of jurisdiction rendered them infructuous.

The Tribunal held that both grounds raised by the Revenue were devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT. This judgment clarified that when incriminating material seized during a search belongs to or relates to a person other than the one searched, proceedings under Section 153C are to be initiated, not under Section 147/148. The Tribunal found that the AO had not presented any material other than that seized during the search of the Manihar Group to initiate proceedings under Section 148. The argument that Section 148 is not rendered otiose by the enactment of Sections 153A to 153D was considered, but the Tribunal reiterated that on fulfillment of the conditions for invoking Section 153C, the AO must proceed accordingly. The Tribunal also observed that the Hon'ble High Court had distinguished the Supreme Court case of M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Ltd., stating that the issue of interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in cases of seized material belonging to third parties was not before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding grounds 1 and 2, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly exercised powers under Section 250(4) by calling for a remand report. The additional evidence was not admitted directly but forwarded to the AO for verification, and the AO's subsequent report confirmed the genuineness of most transactions. Therefore, admitting the evidence did not violate Rule 46A. For the remaining grounds, the Tribunal noted that the AO's remand report contained no adverse remarks and confirmed the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions with four specific lenders: M/s Anantnath Skycon Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 4.25 crore), M/s Pitamber Commodities Futures Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 1 crore), M/s Motisons Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 79.40 lakh), and Shri Prashant Tibrewala (Rs. 3.09 crore). The AO was satisfied with these transactions, which were through banking channels, repaid with interest and TDS, and supported by lenders' ITRs. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's remaining grounds and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the appellant were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the appellant's first application, filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) on 04.08.2025, was rejected by the CIT(E) on 16.01.2026 on merits. Despite having a statutory remedy to challenge this order before a higher forum, the appellant instead filed a second application in Form 10AB for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under section 80G(5)(ii). The Tribunal found this to be a misuse of the process of law, as the issues decided in the first order had attained finality due to the non-filing of an appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had also observed that since no appeal was filed against the order dated 16.01.2026, the findings for rejection had attained finality. Therefore, the second application was not maintainable, and consequently, the appeals against the rejection of the second application also did not lie. The Tribunal did not decide on the genuineness of the activities or the interpretation of section 2(15) as the appeals were dismissed on procedural grounds.