JAI MATA VAISHNO DEVI PARMARTHIK TRUST,JAIPUR V. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1576/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Jai Mata Vaishno Devi Parmarthik Trust, which appealed against the decision of the CIT(E), Jaipur, rejecting its application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The trust faced a delay of 31 days in filing the appeal, which was attributed to confusion over the correct legal remedy available to them. The tribunal found merit in the trust's submissions regarding the delay and condoned it. The main grounds for the initial rejection by the CIT(E) included lack of detailed financial records and the nature of expenditures, which were not adequately addressed by the trust in its application. The tribunal, considering the circumstances and the trust's request for another opportunity to present its case, restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 397063 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2025
• 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
• Assessee Lawyers: KOMAL HARSH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 11; 14A; 80G

Judgement Text

"1 ITA NO. 1576/JPR/2024 JAI MATA VAISHNO DEVI PARMARTHIK TRUST vs CIT(E), Jaipur vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” 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, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1576/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : - Jai Mata Vaishno Devi Parmarthik Trust 709-A, Pratap Nagar, Dadabari Ladpura , Kota 324 009 cuke Vs. The CIT(E) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTJ 0683 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Ms. Komal Harsh, Advocate (Proxy for AR) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 29/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur dated 29-09-2024 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ’That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur rejected the application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly register the same.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there was delay of 31 days in filing the appeal by the assessee trust before the ITAT for 2 ITA1576/JPR/2024 JAI MATA VAISHNO DEVI PARMARTHIK TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR which the ld.AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and thus prayed as under:- ‘’1. That assessee is a trust and filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 31.12.2024 against the rejection order of approval u/s. 80G by Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur, with a delay of 31 days. The appeal Number is ITA No. 1576/JAI/2024. 2. That the delay of 31 days in filing of appeals was due to as there are many recent changes in trust related laws as whether, what is the exact legal remedy available to the trust viz, re- apply or appeal. 3. hat the time was consumed in taking the correct & final legal advice that the legal remedy is re-apply or appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. 4. That thereafter, after taking proper legal advice from 2 to 3 consultants of different cities, that the proper remedy with us is to file appeal before ITAT, we engaged a counsel named Raghuveer Singh Poonia from Jaipur (Rajasthan) and prepare the appeal & filed the same before ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 31.12.2024 (i.e. with a delay of 31 days). 5. Therefore, the delay in filing of appeal was due to confusion of non-clarity about the exact and right legal remedy available to the trust viz. re-apply or appeal. Therefore, the same can be treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 31 days. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant. The assessee prays accordingly.’’ 3 ITA1576/JPR/2024 JAI MATA VAISHNO DEVI PARMARTHIK TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR To this effect, the President of the trust Shri Amit Rohada Jain filed an affidavit deposing the above facts as to the delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to such delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before ITAT but submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 The Bench has heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted that submissions so made by the assessee in late filing the appeal has merit and the delay is condoned. 3.1 As regards the solitary ground of appeal of the assessee, the Bench noted that the ld.CIT(E) rejected application of the assessee trust u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’In response, the applicant furnished no reply/ details, thus, in view of earlier reply following issues emerged:- 1. Not furnished all expenses of charitable activities conducted in last three years. 2. Not furnished details of temple, plot, library, meeting hall, college building as asked vide show cause notice dated 24.09.2024 3. As per details furnished, it is seen that the trust has running Nursing College but not furnished- 1. Copy of I/E accounts for FY. 2023-24 alongwith details of expense like ledger a/c, bills/vouchers, beneficiaries details etc. 4 ITA1576/JPR/2024 JAI MATA VAISHNO DEVI PARMARTHIK TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 2. Bank transaction details above Rs. 50,000/- for last three FY i.e. 2021-22 to 2023-24. 3. No salary details of last three FY. years. 4. No details of payment made to 13(3) persons. 5. No details of salary exp, bus exp, repair & maintenance, Interest paid to others which is expenditure in nature of running such educational institute 6. No details of fee charged whether it is concessional rate alongwith the trust has given free teaching, free teaching etc. 7. Not furnished charitable activities as per given format vide show cause notice 8. Fees charged from the students by the trust. 9. Not furnished vehicle details as per given format. 10. Affiliation certificate granted by the State Govt/Local bodies which is necessary for schools/hospitals. 1. In the Balance sheet for FY 2021-22 & 2022-23, you have shown bus in asset side and claimed various expenses in I/E account of Jhalawar Nursing College You have not maintained separate books of account for this purpose. 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 Therefore, the applicant claim of approval u/s 14A is also liable to be rejected on ground of not providing its genuineness of activity. 07. In view of above discussion applicant's application for approval u/s 80G is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds: - 5 ITA1576/JPR/2024 JAI MATA VAISHNO DEVI PARMARTHIK TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR  The applicant taking benefit of section 10, 11 & 12.  Profitability.  Expenditure incurred for religious purposes violation u/s 80G(5B).  Religious Trust are not eligible u/s 80G(5)(ii) & (iii).  Genuineness of activities.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to advance the documents before the ld.CIT(E) as raised in his order. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld CIT(E). 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the ld. CIT(E) rejected the approval u/s 80G of the Act to the assessee Samiti on following grounds. (i) The applicant taking benefit of section 10, 11 & 12. (ii) Profitability. (iii) Expenditure incurred for religious purposes violation u/s 80G(5B). (iv) Religious Trust are not eligible u/s 80G(5)(ii) & (iii). (v) Genuineness of activities.’’ 6 ITA1576/JPR/2024 JAI MATA VAISHNO DEVI PARMARTHIK TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR In the course of hearing of the appeal, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the desired documents as to the genuineness of the activities will be produced before the ld.CIT(E) and thus he prayed to restore the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for afresh adjudication of the case. In view of the request of the ld.AR of the assessee and in the interest of equity and justice, the Bench feels that the matter needs re-examination by the ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the ld.CIT(E) to consider the above submissions of the assessee and allow the appeal of the assessee in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to submit the necessary document before the ld. CIT(E) to settle the lis and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back 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 ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law. 7 ITA1576/JPR/2024 JAI MATA VAISHNO DEVI PARMARTHIK TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 27 /05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27 /05/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Jai Mata Vaishno Devi Parmarthik Trust, Kota 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The CIT(E), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1576/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "