AKHAND BRAHM SHAKTI SANSTHAN,KARAULI V. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 344/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals filed by Akhand Brahm Shakti Sansthan against the orders of the CIT (Exemption), Jaipur, which denied the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the initial hearings and the absence of adequate opportunities for the assessee to present their case. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored the matter to the CIT (E) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper consideration of the assessee's submissions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314537 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA; ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRISHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority
• Section: 12A; 80G

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 343 & 344/JPR/2025 u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act Assessment Year: 2025- 26 Akhand Brahm Shakti Sansthan Joshi Market, Mohan Nagar, Hindaun City, Karauli – 322 230 cuke Vs. The CIT-Exemption, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.:AAFTA9047 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :ShriShrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR& Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 05 /05 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These are two appeals filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld.CIT (Exemption), Jaipur both dated 23-12- 2024 passedin the matter relating to section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals are as under:- 2 ITA NOS. 343 & 344/JPR/2025 AKHAND BRAHM SHAKTI SANSTHAN VS CIT (E), JAIPUR ITA No. 343/JPR/2025 U/s 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961 1.1 The Impugned order u/s 12AB of the Act dated 23.12.2024 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the application for granting Registration/approval u/s 12AB. The rejection so made and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s 12AB is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. The same kindly be quashed. 3. That the impugned order so passed was in the contravention of the law prevalent at the relevant point of time and also on fact and hence may kindly be quashed. The ld. CIT(E) may be directed to grant Registration/approval from the dated of application.’’ ITA No. 344/JPR/2025 U/s 80G of I.T. Act, 1961 1 The Impugned order u/s 80G/10AB of the Act dated 23.12.2024 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the application for granting registration/ approval u/s 80G. The rejection so made and refusal to grant registration/ approval u/s 80G is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case.The same may kindly be quashed. 3. That the impugned order so passed was in the contravention of the law prevalent at the relevant point of time and also on fact and hence may kindly be quashed. The ld. CIT(E) may be directed to grant Registration/approval from the dated of application. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 06 days in filing the appeals u/s 12AB and u/s 80G of the Act for which the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the delay in filing the appeals was due to hospitalization of his mother and 3 ITA NOS. 343 & 344/JPR/2025 AKHAND BRAHM SHAKTI SANSTHAN VS CIT (E), JAIPUR subsequently she passed away. Hence, he prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned in view of the above reasons. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR did not object and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noted that there is sufficient cause in late filing the appeals by the ld.AR of the assessee. Hence, the delay made by the ld. AR of the assessee is condoned as explained by the ld. AR of the assessee and thus the appeals are heard on merit 2.4 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in ITA No. 343/JP/2025, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’03. Genuineness of Activities:- 3.5. In response to the above show cause notice, no further submission furnished by the applicant. Hence, it is clear that the activities of the applicant trust are not genuine. Hence, from the above, it is clear that the activities are not verifiable and it could not be determined whether the applicant is genuinely carrying out charitable activity and it cannot be ascertained that activities are as per objects. Therefore, the applicant claim of registration u/s 12AB is also liable to be rejected on ground of not proving its genuineness of activity. In view of the above, the present application filed in Form No. 10AB is liable to be rejected. 04. In view of above discussion, applicant’s application for registration u/s 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds:- 4 ITA NOS. 343 & 344/JPR/2025 AKHAND BRAHM SHAKTI SANSTHAN VS CIT (E), JAIPUR Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Genuineness of Activities. 05. Further 12AB (1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfiedhas to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier registration. Thus, it is clarified that applicant's provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 dated 10-03-2022 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularisation of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also lapsed and cancelled.’’ 2.5 Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee in ITA No. 344/JP/2025, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’02. Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB. 2.1 As per rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rule, 1962, the registration u/s 12A/12AB or notification u/s 10(23C) is a precondition for granting approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 Vide this office order No ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2024- 25/10711501099(1) dated 23-12-2024. In view of above discussion, the application in Form No.10AB seeking exemption u/s 80G is liable to be rejected. 03. Further 2nd proviso to 80G(5) also state that if CIT is not satisfied has to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier approval. Thus it is clarified that applicant provisional approval under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act. 1961 dated 31-03-2022 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give properjustification for regularization of provisional approval, thus with this order provisional approval is a lapsed and cancelled.’’ 2.6 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus the orders should be 5 ITA NOS. 343 & 344/JPR/2025 AKHAND BRAHM SHAKTI SANSTHAN VS CIT (E), JAIPUR quashed being ex-parte orders and against the principles of natural justice. Conclusively, the ld AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee trust may be provided one more opportunity to contest the case before the ld CIT(E) and restore the appeal to the file of ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication as the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(E). 2.7 Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E). 2.8 After hearing both parties and perusing the materials available on record, we noticed that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act on following grounds:-  Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959  Genuineness of Activities It is also noticed that the ld.CIT(E) has cancelled the provisional registration of the assessee for the reason that the assessee trust had failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration. It may be noted that the ld.AR of the assessee prayed before the Bench that the assessee trust has applied for registration under RPT Act, 1959 before the competent authority and the assessee trust is likely to get the same and he will submit all the required documents as demanded by the ld. CIT(E). Therefore, in 6 ITA NOS. 343 & 344/JPR/2025 AKHAND BRAHM SHAKTI SANSTHAN VS CIT (E), JAIPUR these circumstances, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with the direction that as and when the assessee trust produces the copy of the Registration under RPT Act, 1959 as well as the documents relating to Genuineness of the Activities then the application of the assessee trust for registration u/s 12AB of the Act be decided afresh in accordance with law. The assessee trust is also directed to produce the complete documents relating to the genuineness of the activities etc. before the ld CIT(E) 2.9 Since we have restored the appeal of the assessee with regard to the registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication, therefore, the outcome of appeal of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act is consequential in nature. 2.10 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back (supra) to the file of the ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law. 7 ITA NOS. 343 & 344/JPR/2025 AKHAND BRAHM SHAKTI SANSTHAN VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 3.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 05 /05/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Akhad Brahm Shakti Sansthan, Hindaun City 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. vk;djvk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No.343&344/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "