JAN CHETNA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,SIKAR V. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1132/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar, which filed two separate applications seeking registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act with the CIT (Exemption), Jaipur. Both applications were dismissed by the CIT (E) on grounds including non-maintainability without a valid provisional certificate, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and non-genuineness of activities. Aggrieved by these decisions, the Samiti appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found that the CIT (E) had not adequately considered relevant CBDT circulars and previous judicial decisions, leading to the remittance of the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780288 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust v. CIT(E)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 12A; 12

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1132 & 1133/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : N.A. Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti Polo Ground Sikar, Sikar. cuke v. The CIT (Exemption), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABAJ3612R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :06/10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06 /10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Appellant in both the above captioned two appeals, filed two separate applications before Learned CIT(E), Jaipur. One application was u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, seeking its registration, and the other application was u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, seeking approval. Vide two separate orders of same date i.e. 03.06.2025, Learned CIT(E), dismissed both applications. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1132 & 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. Feeling aggrieved by the two impugned orders, the applicant is before this Appellate Tribunal, by filing of the above two captioned appeals. 2. This common order is to dispose of the two appeals, as they are inter liked with each other and based on common facts. ITA No. 1132/JPR/2025 3. Application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, came to be dismissed, on the following three grounds:-  Premature/non-maintainable application without valid provisional certificate.  Non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.  Non Genuineness of activities. Ground No.1 of rejection 4. As noticed above, first ground of rejection of the application is that the application was not maintainable without valid provisional certificate. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that in para 6 of the impugned order, while rejecting said application, Learned CIT(E) clarified that the application for provisional registration sub- clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Action 12A of the Act was also being cancelled. In this situation, when there was no provisional certificate, we fail to understand as to where was the need to clarify that the provisional registration under the said provision was also being cancelled. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1132 & 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. When confronted with this query, Ld. DR for the department has not been able to explain these contradictory observations by Learned CIT(E) in the impugned order. 5. Even otherwise, in para 2.1, Learned CIT(E) observed that provisional certificate issued to the applicant was for the assessment years 2022-23 to 2024-25. So, as observed by Learned CIT(E), the provisional certificate was valid upto March, 2024. Present application 12A(10(ac)(iii) of the Act, came to be filed on 06.11.2024. It may mentioned here that as per Circular 06/2023 dated 24.05.2023, CBDT clarified that the trust already existing were required to apply afresh for registration/approval, and further that once registered/ approval is granted, it would be valid for 5 years. 6. On going through the impugned order, we find that Learned CIT(E) has not considered the instructions issued vide circular dated 24.05.2023, as regards approval. So, we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to Learned CIT(E) to consider the above said issue, while taking into consideration the relevant circular(s) issued by CBDT. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1132 & 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. Ground No.2 of rejection 7. As regards the second ground of rejection of the application i.e. non registration of the applicant under RPT Act, 1959, as per decision by the Co-ordinate Bench of Jaipur Benches, in ITA No. 567/JPR/2024, APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust v. CIT(E),delivered on 15.01.2025, that registration under RPT Act, 1959 is not essential requirement to seek registration under Income Tax Act. Therefore, this ground does not survive for rejection of registration of the appellant. Ground No.3 of rejection 8. As regards 3rd ground of rejection of the application, Ld. AR for the appellant candidly admits that the assessee was not responsive to certain queries raised by Learned CIT(E), but, at the same time, Ld. AR has requested that this issue be also restored for being adjudicated by Learned CIT(E), after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. 9. A perusal of page 18 of the impugned order would reveal that the applicant remained non complaint, as regards several directions issued by Learned CIT(E). It was duty of the applicant, and also in its own interest, to furnish requisite information/documents/records so that Learned CIT(E) was in a Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1132 & 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. position to effectively and accurately decide said issue regarding genuineness of activities of the applicant. Since the issue involved is of much significance, for the purposes of application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, we deem it a fit case to restore the application to the files of Learned CIT(E), for decision afresh, after affording opportunity of the application of being heard. However, for non compliance before Learned CIT(E), the appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/-. 10. Consequently, ITA No. 1132/JPR/2025 is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order, whereby the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, was rejected, said application is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh, after affording opportunity of the application of being heard. The appellant to deposit the amount of costs in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and produce the receipt before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on remand. ITA No. 1133/JPR/2025 11. Vide impugned order, which has led to filing of the said appeal, Learned CIT(E) rejected the other application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, seeking approval for the said samiti. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1132 & 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. As noticed above, ITA No. 1133/JPR/2025 filed on the above said three grounds has been disposed of and the application u/s 12 of the Act seeking registration has been restored to its original number. The impugned order, which is a consequential order, also deserves to be set aside for decision of the said application afresh. 12. For the reasons recorded while dealing with same three grounds of rejections of the other application, this appeal is also disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matter is remitted to Learned CIT(E) for decision of the application under section 80G(5) of the Act afresh, after affording opportunity of the application of being heard. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Copy of the order be also placed in the file of the connected appeal. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06 /10/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 1132 & 1133/JPR/2025 Jan Chetna Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sikar. 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1132 & 1133/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "