CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR V. VISHWAKARMA MANDIR PUSHKAR, AJMER

MA 31/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Vishwakarma Mandir Pushkar, a religious trust, which sought registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) initially rejected these applications, leading to appeals by the trust to the ITAT Jaipur. The ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a detailed examination, particularly focusing on the trust's activities and their compliance with the requirements for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The Department's Miscellaneous Applications sought to challenge this remand, arguing that the appeals should be dismissed based on the merits discussed in their applications. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's applications, emphasizing the need for a thorough re-examination of the trust's compliance with the statutory requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774068 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: P.C. PARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"1 MA NOS. 31 & 32/JPR/2025 CIT (EXEMPTION) , JAIPUR VS VISHWAKARMA MANDIR PUSHKAR, AJMER vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Misc. Application Nos. 31 & 32/JPR/2025 (Arising out of vk;djvihyla-@ITA Nos. 771 & 772/JPR/2025) fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur cuke Vs. Vishwakarma Mandir Pushkar Mahadev Chowk,Choti Basti Pushkar, Ajmer LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKTS 2350 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 25/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Both these Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the Revenue u/s 254(2) of the Act against the order of the ITAT Jaipur Bench dated 26-09- 2024 in the case of the assessee wherein the appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes by observing at para 9 of the order as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA NOS. 31 & 32/JPR/2025 CIT (EXEMPTION) , JAIPUR VS VISHWAKARMA MANDIR PUSHKAR, AJMER ‘’9. In respect of the ITA no. 772/JPR/2024 relating to the application of the assessee for recognition of the trust as per provisions of section 80G of the Act. This application was rejected for four reasons the first one is that the assessee was not considered for registration u/s. 12AB and therefore, the same was not considered for recognition u/s. 80G of the Act. Second reason was that the assessee has not filed the application within six months from the start of the actives. Since for the issue of filling the application within six-month CBDT has extended those six monthtime lineupto 30.06.2024 and since the matter of 12AB registration is set aside we considered it deem to set aside this issue of recognition for 80G of the Act also to the file of the ld. CIT(E). The third and fourth reasons are similar to the reasons in rejection of 12AB application and since that aspect of the matter we have set aside that matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) we considered to set aside the appeal challenging the recognition u/s. 80G of the Act also to the file of the ld. CIT(E). Based on these observations the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 771/JPR/2024 and ITA no. 772/JPR/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. ‘’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the Misc. Applications, it is noticed that there is delay of 32 days in filing the Miscellaneous Applications by the Department for which the Department has filed application for condonation of delay wherein the Bench has not found merit and the same is not condoned. However, the Bench disposes of the Misc. Applications on merit too. 3.1 The Bench has taken into consideration the Misc. Applications of the Department in the matter of Section 12AB and 80G of the Act. The submissions as made by the Department in the Misc. Applications are reproduced as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA NOS. 31 & 32/JPR/2025 CIT (EXEMPTION) , JAIPUR VS VISHWAKARMA MANDIR PUSHKAR, AJMER ‘’The present MA is pertaining to M/s Vishwakarma Mandir Pushkar. Pushkar, Ajmer (herein after referred as assessee) against the order of Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 77186772/JPR/2024 dated 26.09.2024 Brief Background of the case: The assessee filed an appeal challenging the order u/s 12AB & 800 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 passed by CITIE), Jaipur vide order dated 28.03.2024 In this case, the assessce filed online applications in Form 10AB No seeking registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G(5)bal of the LT Act, 1961 on 30.09.2023. However, the assessee's both the applications for seeking registration u/s 12AB & approval u/s 80G of the LT. Act. 1961 were rejected vide separate orders 28.03.2024 Reasons for declining registration u/s 12AB i. Object for the benefit of particular caste/community Genuineness of activities. ii. Genuineness of activities Reasons for declining approval u/s 80G i. Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB ii. Religious Trust are not eligible u/s 80G(5) iii. Expenditure incurred for religious purposes. iv. Commencement of activities Aggrieved with the said orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Benches \"A\", Jaipur vide order dated 26.09.2024 in ITA No. 771/JPR/2024 remand the matter back to the file of CIT(E) with direction assessee to file all the required details In ITA No. 772/JPR/2024, the order u/s 80G was rejected on 4 grounds, however, the Hon'ble Tribunal mainly focused only two grounds which are as sunder i. Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB ii. Commencement of activities The Hon’ble Tribunal failed to address two more significant major ground which were discussed in the order, the details of grounds are as under:- i. Religious Trust are not eligible u/s 80G(5) ii. Expenditure incurred for religious purposes Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA NOS. 31 & 32/JPR/2025 CIT (EXEMPTION) , JAIPUR VS VISHWAKARMA MANDIR PUSHKAR, AJMER The Tribunal considered that these grounds are simlar to the reason in rejection of 12AB application, however, both the grounds are not similar with application u/s 12AB and are exclusively for order u/s 80G and has been discussed in details in para 354 (page 3 to 13 of order of CIT(E) The Hon'ble ITAT has not decided the matter on the facts available on records and not discussed the issues on the basis of which the rejection order of registration u/s 80G was passed by CIT(E) Based on above facts and discussion, it is clear that order of Hon'ble ITAT suffer from infirmity, as account of non-availability of correct facts or not understanding of complete facts Therefore, the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly consider the above mistake and amend the order accordingly on the following grounds- 1. Decide the matter on the facts available on records discussing the issues on the basis of which the rejection orders of registration u/s 80G was passed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the order of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench dated 26-09-2024 saying that the MA is not maintainable as the revenue has not decided the matter which is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) and therefore, the revenue is trying to change the merits of the dispute by way of present miscellaneous applications. 3.3 We have heard the both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noteworthy to mention that the Bench has restored the appeal of the assessee relating to registration u/s 12AB of the Act and deemed it fit set aside the appeal relating to Section 80G of the Act. Whereas the revenue contend that the looking to the merits of the dispute Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA NOS. 31 & 32/JPR/2025 CIT (EXEMPTION) , JAIPUR VS VISHWAKARMA MANDIR PUSHKAR, AJMER as raised in those appeal which reads as under the matter should not be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(E) but should have been dismissed. Reasons for declining registration u/s 12AB i. Object for the benefit of particular caste/community Genuineness of activities. ii. Genuineness of activities Reasons for declining approval u/s 80G i. Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB ii. Religious Trust are not eligible u/s 80G(5) iii. Expenditure incurred for religious purposes. iv. Commencement of activities The bench noted that the appeal of the assessee was decided based on the contention raised before the bench and considering the peculiar facts as argued bench has considered the appeal to be restored to be file of the ld. CIT(E) and thereby provided fair chance to each party. Considering that aspect of the matter since the bench has given equal chance to the revenue to be decided the case of the assessee we do not find any merits in the contention raised in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the revenue and thereby the same are dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA NOS. 31 & 32/JPR/2025 CIT (EXEMPTION) , JAIPUR VS VISHWAKARMA MANDIR PUSHKAR, AJMER 4.0 In the result, both theMisc. Applications of the Department are dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 10/09/2025. 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:- 10/09/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- The CIT (Exemption), Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Vishwakarma Mandir Pushkar, Ajmer 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 771 & 772/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "