JAN SWABHIMAN MANCH,JAIPUR V. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1045/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jan Swabhiman Manch, a trust based in Jaipur, which appealed against the orders of the CIT(E), Jaipur, dismissing their applications for registration under section 12AB and for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) had dismissed these applications on grounds including the commencement of activities before registration and non-genuineness of activities. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in how the CIT(E) handled the applications, particularly in not allowing adequate time for the trust to respond to the show cause notice and in not considering the certificate of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, which was issued after the CIT(E)'s decision but before the Tribunal's hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774153 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: P.C. PARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Competent authority
• Section: 12A; 80G

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 jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1045 & 1046/JPR/2025 Jan Swabhiman Manch Flat No. 3, Ground Floor Neelkanth Apartment, Plot No. E 164, Jaipur Heritage, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The CIT(E), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKAJ8295M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, This common order is to dispose of the above captioned two appeals, which are based on common facts, and Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department have argued the same simultaneously. 2. The first mentioned appeal challenges order dated 25.06.2025, passed by Learned CIT(E), whereby application filed by the appellant seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act has been dismissed, on the following three grounds:- Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1045 & 1046/JPR/2025 Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur  Commencement of activities.  Non-Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.  Non-genuineness of activities. 3. The second mentioned appeal has been filed challenging order dated 25.06.2025, whereby another application filed by the appellant seeking approval u/s 80G has been dismissed, on the following three grounds:-  Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB.  Commencement of activities.  Religious trust are not eligible u/s 80G(5). 4. Arguments heard. File perused. Non registration under RPT Act, 1959 5. So far as this ground of rejection of the two applications that the applicant was not having any registration under RPT Act is concerned, Ld. AR for the appellant has drawn our attention to page 28 of the paper book, which is copy of a certificate issued by the competent authority to the applicant, certifying its registration under RPT Act,1959, on 08.08.2025. 6. As noticed above, the impugned order was passed by Learned CIT(E) on 25.06.2025. Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1045 & 1046/JPR/2025 Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur that requisite application was filed before the competent authority to seek registration under RPT Act, but, since it was pending and no certificate had been issued by then i.e. on 25.06.2025, this ground does not survive. 7. It is true that with the registration of the applicant on 08.08.2025, this ground does not survive for rejection of the application of the applicant u/s 12AB of the Act, and, Learned CIT(E) may take into consideration the certificate, copy whereof has been submitted before us. Commencement of activities 8. As regards the first ground regarding commencement of activities, Learned CIT(E) observed that a show cause notice dated 21.06.2025 was issued to the applicant informing him that the application u/s 12A filed on 04.12.2024 was not maintainable, the same having been filed 6 months after commencement of the activities i.e. on 24.08.2023, and the same having not been filed in time. 9. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that as per proviso to clause (ac) to section 12A(1) inserted with effect from 01.10.2014, PCIT/CIT have been empowered to condone the delay in filing of the application, whenever there is a reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing the same. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1045 & 1046/JPR/2025 Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur This legal preposition is not disputed by Ld. DR for the department, but his submission is that the applicant did not file any application seeking condonation of delay. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that approval of provisional registration having been granted to the applicant upto the assessment year 2026-27, the assessee was under the impression that application for permanent registration could be presented within 6 months before the expiry of the said period of provisional registration. 10. In this regard, suffice it to say that Learned CIT(E)called upon the applicant to show cause as per show cause notice dated 21.06.2025, but even then the applicant did not file any application seeking condonation of delay. 11. In the given situation, having regard to the fact that the applicant- appellant claims to be under the impression that application for permanent registration could be filed 6 month before the expiry of the period of its approval of registration, we understand that Learned CIT(E) would liberally consider the said plea of the applicant on the point of condonation of delay in filing of the application u/s 12AB of the Act, after being heard on this point. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1045 & 1046/JPR/2025 Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur Non genuineness of activities 12. On this ground, ld. AR for the appellant has referred to para 4.2 and the references made in the impugned order, dealing with the said ground, as regards notices issued to the appellant-applicant and the reply thereto furnished by the applicant. Then Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to page 25 of the impugned order, wherein Learned CIT(E) concluded as to why the activities of the applicant trust were not genuine. 13. The contention of Ld. AR for the appellant is that entire information sought by Learned CIT(E) was furnished, and further that even if the applicant had not furnished any detailed criteria for rendering help to victim of rights that was not a good ground for rejection of registration of the applicant. 14. As regards non furnishing of complete details of places where unawareness programmes are stated to have been conducted by the appellant trust, Ld. AR has submitted that all requisite details were furnished. 15. As regards the observations made by Learned CIT(E) that four applications purported to have been submitted by four beneficiaries to have financial assistance from the applicant trust, were in the same hand Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1045 & 1046/JPR/2025 Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur writing, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that this fact could not create any doubt in the genuineness of the activities as generally applications for financial assistance are written by the representative/official of the applicant trust. 16. On going through the impugned order, we find that the last mentioned show cause notice was issued by Learned CIT(E) to the assessee dated 21.06.2025. The impugned order came to be passed on 25.06.2025. It appears that because of time lines available to Learned CIT(E) for disposal of suchlike applications, sufficient time could not be afforded to the applicant trust. Having regard to this fact and the issues involved, we deem it a fit case to set aside the findings recorded by Learned CIT(E) on the point of non genuineness of activities, and to remit the matter to Learned CIT(E), for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. Result ITA No. 1045/JPR/2025 17. In view of the above discussion and observations, the application u/s 12AB of the Act is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 1045 & 1046/JPR/2025 Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur afresh, having regard to the findings recorded the above and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. Consequently, ITA No. 1045/JPR/2025 is disposed of, for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1046/JPR/2025 18. On going through the impugned order, we find that application u/s 80G of the Act filed by the applicant came to be rejected for want of registration u/s 12AB of the Act. As noticed above, the application u/s 12AB has been restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh. Therefore, this ground does not survive any more. As regards commencement of activity, for the reasons recorded above, while dealing with same ground as regards application u/s 12AB of the Act, we understand that Learned CIT(E) would liberally consider the said plea of the applicant on the point of condonation of delay in filing of the application u/s 80G of the Act, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. Religious Trusts 19. Another ground for rejection of the application u/s 80G of the Act is that religious trust are not eligible u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Learned CIT(E) Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 1045 & 1046/JPR/2025 Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur was of the view that under the said provision, benefit can be granted only to charitable organizations and not to religious organization. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the applicant trust did not incur any expenditure of religious nature and that even otherwise section 80G(5) permits expenditure on activity of religious nature to the extent of 5% of the total income. 20. A perusal in para 4.4 of the impugned order would reveal that Learned CIT(E) referred to objects contained in clause 13 of the deed of the applicant trust, in arriving at the conclusion that the applicant is actually a religious trust. 21. It is true that in object clause 13, it finds mentioned that one of the objects of the applicant is to raise construction of places for religions of different Sampradayas, but this object clause contained other objects, too, which have not been taken into consideration by Learned CIT(E). 22. In the given situation, we deem it a fit case that this issue needs to be adjudicated afresh by Learned CIT(E), after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. Result 23. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose, and the application u/s 80G is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E), for Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 1045 & 1046/JPR/2025 Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur decision afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant in accordance with law. Files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Copy of common order be also placed in the connected appeal file. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Jan Swabhiman Manch, jaipur. 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 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No.1045 & 1046/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "