KGK FOUNDATION,JAIPUR V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1105/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves KGK Foundation appealing against the orders of the CIT (Exemption), Jaipur, which rejected their applications for registration under section 12AB and for exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT (Exemption) had earlier granted provisional registrations and approvals, which were later cancelled based on findings that the activities of the foundation were non-genuine and beyond the objects of charitable nature. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemption) had provided multiple opportunities for the foundation to present its case and documents, which were not adequately complied with. However, considering the submissions and additional documents presented during the hearing, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for a detailed examination of the new evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775653 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur Vs ITO (E), Jaipur, ACIT Vs Surat City Gymkhana, CIT-1, Jodhpur Vs Jodhpur Development Authority, Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs DIT, DIT(E) Vs the Chembur Gymkhana, CIT Vs Nirmala Baku Bhai Foundation, DCIT Vs Indo Global Education Foundation
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S.R. SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Charitable institution; Cancellation of registration
• 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 JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oaJhujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 1104 & 1105/JP/2025 U/S 12AB & 80G of the Act fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear :- 2025-26 KGK Foundation E-44, Lal Bahadur Nagar, JLN Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur – 302 017 cuke Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKCK 5948 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma,CA Shri Rajnikant Bhatra,CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha,CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld.CIT (Exemption), Jaipur dated 26-03- 2025 passed under section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the above-mentioned appeals are as under: - Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR ITA NO. 1104/JP/2025 U/S 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961 ‘’1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by Id. CIT. Exemption u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the IT Act, 1961 rejecting application of the appellant for registration u's 120(1)(ac)(iii) and cancelling carlier provisional registration granted u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) of the IT Act, 1961 is wrong and bad in law 2. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT, Exemption while rejecting application u's 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) is grossly wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that activities of the appellant are allegedly non-genuine and are also allegedly beyond the objects of charitable nature even though full details of charitable activities carried by the appellant for furtherance of its object backed by documentary evidence were submitted before him. The finding so recorded by the Id. CIT(A) is wrong, arbitrary, unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts, without any corroborative evidence and bad in law 3. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, the Id. CIT. Exemption is also wrong and has grossly erred in law in cancelling provisional registration granted to appellant u/s 12(A)(1)(ac)(vi)(A) vide order dt 27-03-2024 on the account of finding recorded by him about alleged non genuineness of appellant's activities and that these activities were allegedly beyond object of charitable nature ITA NO. 1105/JP/2025 U/S 80G of I.T. Act, 1961 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by Id. CIT, Exemption under second proviso to sec. 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 rejecting the application of the appellant for approval u/s 80G and also cancelling carlier order dt. 29.03.2024 granting provisional approval under clause (iv)(A) of first provise to sec. 80G(5) is wrong and bad in law. 2 That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT, Exemption while rejecting application u/s 80G is grossly wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that appellant has allegedly failed to furnish any reply to show cause notices and therefore as held by him in order dt. 26.06.2025 u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the IT Act, 1961 cancelling registration u/s 12AB that activities of the appellant are allegedly not genuine and are also beyond the objects of charitable nature. The finding so recorded by the Id. ст. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR Exemption is wrong, arbitrary, unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts. without any corroborative evidence and bad in law in as much detailed reply to show cause notices duly supported by documentary evidences were submitted to him. The cancellation of application for registration u/s 80G on the ground that application o's 12AB is rejected is therefore wrong and bad in law 3. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, the Id. CTT, Exemption is also wrong and has grossly erred in law in cancelling provisional approval granted to it clause (iv)(A) of first proviso to sec. 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 vide order d 27.03.2024 on account of finding recorded by him in order dated 26.06.2025 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) about alleged non genuineness of appellant's activities and activities carried were allegedly beyond object of charitable nature 2.1 Apropos of the grounds so raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1104/JP/2025, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act by observing at page 22 of his order asunder:- ‘’ The applicant has not furnished complete details with documentary evidences as asked vide various notices. 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 registration u/s 12AB is also liable to be rejected on ground of not proving its genuineness of activity. ‘’04. In view of above discussion assessee’s claim of registration section 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on followinggrounds:-  Genuineness of activities and activities beyond the objects of charitable nature. 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 27.03.2024 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also cancelled.’’ Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 2.2 Apropos of the grounds so raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1105/JP/2025, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing at pages 1 & 2 of his order 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 IT Act, 1961 Vide this office order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025- 26/1077870627(1) dated 26.06.2025, the application of the applicant for grant approval u/s 12A/12B was rejected. Also, during the present proceedings, the applicant has also failed to furnish any replies, thus, genuineness of activities and all the above issues remains same. Thus, genuineness of activities and all the issues remain same. Thus, the claim of the applicant u/s 80G is liable to rejected on this issue on following grounds  Non Genuineness of Activities and activities beyond the objects of charitable nature. In view of above discussion, the application in form No. 10AB seeking exemption u/s 80G is liable to be rejected 03. In view of above discussion assessee's claim of approval u/s 80G is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds: - -Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB 04. Further 2nd proviso to 80G(5) also state that if CIT is not satisfiedhas 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 dated29.03.2024 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional approval, thus with this order provisional approval is also lapsed and cancelled.’’ 2.3 In the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee has submitted an application under rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 with the request to admit the following documents in support of the merits Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR of the disputes which the assessee could not place on record on earlier occasion : 1. Copy of Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Society of NCT Delhi of the Teamwork Find Society (PB 1). 2. Copy of Memorandum of Association of the Teamwork Fine Art Society (PB 2-30). 3. Copy of Letter-cum-Undertaking provided by the Team Work Fine Art Society for application for donation given by M/s. KGK Foundation towards its aim and objects (PB 31-32) 4. Copy of Form No 10BE being a certificate of donation under clause (IX) to sub-section 5 of Section 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 (PB 33). The ld. AR further submitted that above mentioned documents are important in deciding the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for which the ld. DR objected by submitting that the assessee, even though given opportunity, failed to support his contention. The Bench noted that the documents called for were not available and therefore, the assessee could not place it on record. Considering the overall facts and circumstances as argued by the ld. DR, the Bench considers the above documents relevant for adjudication of the issue of registration of the assessee trust. 2.4 Further, it is pertinent to mention that in order to support the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the matter of Section 12AB and 80G of Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR the Act, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following submissions before the Bench: Ref : M/s KGK Foundation, Jaipur PAN:AAKCK5948C, Appeals No. ITA 1104/JPR/2025 and ITA 1105/JPR/2025 Hearing on 08.09.2025 ______________________________________________________ Hon’ble Sirs, In the matter of above appeals, we are to submit as under:- 1 Facts : 1(i) The issues involved in above Appeals No. ITA 1104 and 1105 are identical, inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances are common, therefore, common submissions are made.The appellant KGK Foundation is a registered company under section 8 of the Company’s Act 2013 and one of the forms of charitable institute / trust under section 8 of the Company’s Act 2013.The Central Government has authorized to operate for the welfare of public at large and the KGK Foundation is incorporatedon 23.10.2003 for Public Charitable purposes to achieve the said aims of the Government. The particulars of main objects as per clause 3(a) of Memorandum of Association (MoA) are as follows :- Clause No. 3(a)(1) - To promote, encourage, support, assist, aid, impart education, training including vocational training, skills research and development and advance education activities by promoting schools, colleges, university(s) for preprimary, primary, secondary, undergraduate, post-graduate, doctoral, post-doctoral, vocational or otherwise in various branches or fields of education. Clause No. 3(a)(2) - To undertake, carry out, promote and sponsor development of life in every aspect in rural and urban areas and to promote, encourage, support, assist and protect the arts, music and culture. Clause No. 3(1)(3) to 3(a)(6), a copy of Memorandum of Association is enclosed. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 1(ii) From the said objects, it is evident and verifiable that objects of the Trust are for charitable in nature and not for any profit.A reference is also therein Clause No. 3(a)(8) at Page No. 2 of the Memorandum of Association. However, for ready reference, the said clause is reproduced here in below :- “No objects of the company will be carried out on commercial basis” 1(iii) As per above facts, which are duly supported by the documentary evidences, the Foundation is a Public Charitable Institute / Trust and fulfills all other requirements as per provision of Section 12AB and 80G of the IT Act, 1961.The appellant submitted an application in Form No. 10AB on 12.12.2024 for seeking permanent registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 after obtaining provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iv)-A on 23.03.2024. After that with reference to the said application, the learned CIT (E) issued a letter / notice raising various queries and also required to furnish the documents on 21.02.2025 and on other dates as referred in the order passed on 26.06.2025. The appellant submitted all the required details from time to time.After considering the replies / explanations and documents, the learned CIT rejected the application of the appellant and also cancelled the provisional registration granted under clause (iv) of clause (ac) of sub section (1) of section 12A of the IT Act, 1961. The learned CIT (E) has also rejected the application filed for seeking exemption under second proviso to 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 and cancelled the earlier provisional approval granted on 19.03.2024 under clause (iv)(A) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 for the following reasons :- (a) The donation given to “The Teamwork Fine Art Society” being a charitable trust having valid registration u/s 12AB and 80G5 of the IT Act, 1961 having similar objects to the foundation is not a charitable purpose. (b) The Teamwork Fine Art Society (TWFAS) has organized an event in the name of The Jaigarh Heritage Festival which was not opened for the general public and placing logo KGK Group on all banners and pamphlets, etc. (c) The appellant failed to submit copy of letter received from the organizers requesting for the sponsorship of the event. (d) The appellant failed to establish that the objects of the TWFAS and the appellant are similar to each other. Aggrieved by the above said action of the learned CIT (E), the appellant filed an appeal before your honours raising the following grounds of appeals. 2. Grounds of Appeal for u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR (i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by ld. CIT, Exemption u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the IT Act, 1961 rejecting application of the appellant for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and cancelling earlier provisional registration granted u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) of the IT Act, 1961 is wrong and bad in law. (ii) That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT, Exemption while rejecting application u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) is grossly wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that activities of the appellant are allegedly non-genuine and are also allegedly beyond the objects of charitable nature even though full details of charitable activities carried by the appellant for furtherance of its object backed by documentary evidence were submitted before him. The finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) is wrong, arbitrary, unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts, without any corroborative evidence and bad in law. (iii) That without prejudice to the ground No.(1) above, the ld. CIT, Exemption is also wrong and has grossly erred in law in cancelling provisional registration granted to appellant u/s 12(A)(1)(ac)(vi)(A) vie order dt. 27.03.2024 on the account of finding recorded by him about alleged non- genuineness of appellant’s activities and that these activities were allegedly beyond object of charitable nature. (iv) That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 3. Grounds of Appeal for u/s 80G(5) (i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the impugned order passed by ld. CIT, Exemption under second proviso to sec. 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 rejecting the application of the appellant for approval u/s 80G and also cancelling earlier order dt. 29.03.2024 granting provisional approval under clause (iv)(A) of first proviso to sec. 80G(5) is wrong and bad in law. (ii) That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT,Exemption while rejecting application u/s 80G is grossly wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that appellant has allegedly failed to furnish any reply to show cause notices and therefore as held by him in order dt. 26.06.2025 u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the IT Act, 1961 cancelling registration u/s 12AB that activities of the appellant are allegedly not genuine and are also beyond the objects of charitable nature. The finding so recorded by the ld. CIT, Exemption is wrong, arbitrary, unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts, without any corroborative evidence and bad in law in as much detailed reply to show cause notices duly supported by documentary evidences were submitted to him. The cancellation Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR of application for registration u/s 80G on the ground that application u/s 12AB is rejected is therefore wrong and bad in law. (iii) That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above, the ld. CIT, Exemption is also wrong and has grossly erred in law in cancelling provisional approval granted to it clause (iv)(A) of first proviso to sec. 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 vide order dt. 27.03.2024 on account of finding recorded by him in order dated 26.06.2025 u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) about alleged non genuineness of appellant’s activities and activities carried were allegedly beyond object of charitable nature. (iv) That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 4. The ground wise submissions of the appellants are as follows :- First Ground of both the Appeals : 4(i) First ground of both the appeals is challenging, the action of the learned CIT(E) rejecting the application of the appellant u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the IT Act, 1961, cancellation the earlier provisional registration granted u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) of the IT Act, 1961 and the order passed under second proviso to Section 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 cancelling the earlier order dated 29.03.2024 granting provisional approval under clause (iv)(A) of first proviso of Section 80G(5). The learned CIT(E) cancel the registration and rejected the 80G exemption for the reasons that the TWFAS has organized an event in the name of The Jaigarh Heritage Festival. He further mentioned that the organizers charged Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 80,000/- in individual, couple and family respectively. He further mentioned that the event has a normally entry ticket of Rs. 200/-. The learned CIT(E) further mentioned that the Jaigarh Heritage Festival was organized by the Royal Family, Jaipur as the name of royal family mentioned as host in the ticket image. The learned CIT(E) further observed that the appellant has not explained that what enquiries were made before making contribution of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Healso of the view that tofavour the royal family and personal benefits of Directors of the KGK Group the above donation was given. Further in drawing adverse view, the learned CIT has also mentioned that being attendees are affluent people and the KGK brand had good advertising platform. Ultimately, the learned CIT(E) held that due to non-submission of request letter for sponsorship of the event, KGK Group have benefited from event and the TWFAS is only anevent management entity. In this regard, it is submitted that the findings of the CIT(E) as well as the adverse inference drawn on the legs of the said findings are without any basis Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR and / or any corroborative evidences. It is also evident from the order itself that the adverse inference is drawn without taking into consideration the objects of the trust. As submitted above the objects of both the trusts KGK and TWFAS, which are evident from the object clauses of KGK Foundation and TWFAS are the same and are for public charitable purposes. Inthis connection it is worthwhile to submit here that Ld. CIT (E) has not pointed out any non-charitable purpose object of the appellant in the impugned order passed. The appellant places reliance on the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 171 Taxmann.Com 575 (2025) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the commissioner is required to restrict himself to the objects of the trust. 4(ii) Further, the activities carried out by the TWFAS are genuine and in the sense that they are in the line with the objects of the trust. It is pertinent to submit here that the definition of charitable purposes given in Section 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961 includes preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historical interest and the advancement of any other objects of general public utility. Thus, the inference drawn by the learned CIT(E) that the donation given by the appellant to the TWFAS is not for charitable purposes is against his own findings and also against the legal documentary evidences available on record. 5. Second and Third Grounds of both the Appeals : 5(i) The issues involved in Second and Third grounds of both the appeals are identical, inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances are common, therefore, common submissions are made.The said grounds of appeal are challenging, the action of the learned CIT(E) in rejecting the application of the appellant u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) on account of allegedly non genuine and beyond objects of the charitable nature and also rejecting the application u/s 80G(5) on the similar ground. In this connection, the appellant submits that the reasons given by the learned CIT(E) are of presumptive nature, without any supporting corroborative evidencesand also in contravention to the supporting documentary evidences filed by the appellant before the learned CIT(E). For better understanding and easy to explain the appellant submits comparative chart having reasons of the learned CIT(E) on account of same he rejected above said supra application(s) of the appellant and the reply of the appellant thereof :- S.No. Reasons of the learned CIT(E) Reply of the Appellant 1. Appellant failed to explain the objects of the KGK Complete details of the objects of the KGK Foundation are given in Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR Foundation are similar with TWFAS. Memorandum of Association and as per Clause No. 3(a)(2) i.e. “To undertake, carry out, promote and sponsor development of life in every aspect in rural and urban areas and to promote, encourage, support, assist and protect the arts, music and culture.” And TWFAS vide Clause No. 3(a)– “To promote all kinds of fine arts and cultural activities e.g. art, culture, fine arts, painting, music, film making, puppetry, theatre, dance, drama, writing, voice overs, dubbing etc. amongst the general public.”Copy of Memorandum of Association of TWFAS is submitted as an additional evidence under rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963. Copy of the Memorandum of Association of the Appellant is enclosed herewith. 2. Entry ticket charges Rs. 200/- of Jaigarh Fort. The appellant is absolutely unconnected with the said charges and also not participating in the management of Jaigarh Fort which is owned by the royal family. Further, the TWFAS is also not having any control over the said entry ticket charges. The organizers of Jaigarh Fort Heritage Festival have charged Rs. 30,000/- , Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- for individual, couple and family respectively. As evident from the order of the learned CIT(E) that the appellant is not connected or related with the above said charges and no amount is received out of the said charges by Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR the appellant. In this regard, it is also submitted that the Jaigarh Fort is a world heritage site and icon of Rajasthan, India. Further the said fort is spread inmorethan 100 acres, at the time of its occupancy about 35000 persons living there. The owners of the fort are royal family which manages the said historical monument and tokencharges/fees fee is fixed Rs.200 to protect the historical place from unsocial element and security purposes in all 365 days of the year. The Jaigarh Heritage Festival, etc. are organized every year by the Royal family for about a week or more than that to attract the tourists. But the appellant is not concerned with the said activities at all. Further the TWFAS has only use the said Jaigarh Fort as a venue to promote fine arts and cultural activities for limited hours. 3. KGK Group have benefited by using display KGK brand logo at the event side and to serve a business investment for the brand of KGK, a internationally known as Gems and Jewellery Group. The KGK logo is flagship logo of the KGK Group and all concerns of the said group and charitable institutions are using the said logo. Further, the KGK group of concerns are carrying on multiple business activities i.e. Real Estate, Medical, Gems, Stone, Agriculture and Jewellery, etc.Further from the banner of the KGK Foundation pasted by the learned CIT(E), in his order at page no. 17 of the order it is crystal clear that no particulars of business or any other specifications which attract any business propositions from then visitors. In this regard it is also submitted that it is a known Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR general practice that the organizers are displaying name of donor in the banners/pamphlets displayed at the function site. Thus, the inference drawn by the CIT (E) of drawing business benefits is grossly wrong and against the apparent facts of the appellant’s case. 5(ii) That the done trust TWAFS is a Registered Society as from April, 2000 and to achieve its objects carrying on such types of activities/ functions regularly since the last twenty five years. Further the IT department has continuously granted Registration u/s 12A/12AB and also exemption u/s 80G(5) of the I T Act, 1961. 5(ii) In view of above undisputed facts, it is evident and verifiable that the learned CIT(E) in cancellation of the Registration u/s 12AB and rejecting the application u/s 80G(5) has relied upon the irrelevant facts inapplicable to the appellant. More so the appellant has only donated a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to a society / trust having similar objects to the appellant’s objects duly permitted as per clause (iii) in explanation 4 to 11 (1) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, there was no contravention of any of the provision of section 11 to 13 and 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant also placed reliance on the following case laws having similar facts to the appellant. (i) Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench-A, Jaipur in the case of Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur Vs ITO (E), Jaipur, ITA Nos. 66,67 & 68/JP/2022 (ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 14 SCC 169, CIT-1, Jodhpur Vs Jodhpur Development Authority (2016) 287 CRT 473 (Raj), Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs DIT (2013) 86 CCH 212, DIT(E) Vs the Chembur Gymkhana (2012) 345 ITR 86. (iii) CIT Vs Nirmala Baku Bhai Foundation 226 ITR 394 Gujarat (iv) DCIT Vs Indo Global Education Foundation (2025) 173 taxman.com 99 (Chandigarh)- In this casethe Hon’ble Coordinate bench constituted Vice President and Accountant Member held all donations given by the assessee to other registered trust was to be considered as an application of income and thus same was to be allowed as an exemption u/s 11”. As per above submitted facts, circumstances and the supporting documentary evidences, it is submitted that the appellant KGK foundation is a charitable institution carrying on the charitable activities as per its objects clauses. It is Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR therefore humbly requested that the registration u/s 12AB, exemption u/s 80G(5) may kindly be allowed and the order passed by the learned CIT(E) for cancellation of registration u/s 12AB and rejecting the application u/s 80G(5) may kindly be quashed. 2.5 In the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above mentioned appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) as the documents called for was supposed to be received from the third party. The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that KGK Foundation had given donation of Rs.15.00 lacs to The Teamwork Fine Arts Society. This amount was remitted to its Standard Chartered Bank A/c No.52110112020 by the KGK Foundation(PB32) and the same was acknowledged by The Teamwork Fine Arts Society (PB 31). The assessee submitted that the donation given by them is within the object of the trust and thereby the recipient of the donation being charitable institution the activity done by them whether commercial in nature or not will affect the registration of the applicant trust. The ld.AR of the assessee also submitted that the appeals may be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to pass order after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and clarify the doubts raised in the order of the ld. CIT(E). Conclusively, the ld AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee trust may be provided with one more opportunity to the Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR contest the case of the assessee before the ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(E) for afresh adjudication as the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(E) or the sufficient opportunity was not given. 2.6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E) and submitted that the assessee was already provided various opportunities by the ld. CIT(E) and thereby ld. DR supported the finding of the ld. CIT(E). 2.7 After hearing both parties and perusing the materials available on record, we noticed that the ld. CIT(E) has granted as much as sixdate of hearing to the assessee to submit the details. Based on non-compliance at the end of the assessee Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act on the reason that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the Activities and whether the activities carried out by the trust are within the object of the trust or not. 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. The prayer of the ld.AR of the assessee is that the assessee may be provided one more Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR chance to adduce the documents before the ld. CIT(E) to resolve the issue in question as the reasons advanced are curable in nature and thereby the assessee has already sought to place on record the additional evidence and offered to file further document as may be required. Considering that aspect of the matter that the issues like ‘’non-genuineness of activities and activities beyond the objects of charitable nature’’, the assessee trust is directed to submit all the desired documents before the ld. CIT(E) with a view to resolve the issue. Therefore, in these circumstances, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with the direction that the assessee shall produce the documents relating to the genuineness of the activities and activities beyond the objects of charitable nature details before the ld. CIT(E). 2.8 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. 2.9 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 Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA NO.1104 & 1105/JP/2025 KGK FOUNDATION, JAIPUR VS CIT (E), JAIPUR merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08 /09/2025 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnzdqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/09/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- KGK Foundation, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The CIT(E), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 1104&1105/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "