KSHETRIY JANJATI VIKAS SAMITI BHARATPUR,JAIPUR V. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1553/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kshetriy Janjati Vikas Samiti, Bharatpur, which applied for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act but faced rejections from the CIT (Exemption), Jaipur. The Tribunal noted procedural non-compliance by the applicant, including non-appearance and failure to provide necessary documents, which led to the initial rejections. Despite these issues, the Tribunal decided to give the applicant another opportunity to present their case, emphasizing the need for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 39737 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY DHARIWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. POONIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• 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” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1550 to 1553/JP/2024 Kshetriy Janjati Vikas Samiti Bharatpur Meena Chatravaas, SPM Nagar, Bharatpur City, Bharatpur cuke Vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJAK 6835 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. R.S.Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 12/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 12/02/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER BENCH: On 25th May, 2024, by way of two online applications uploaded in Form No. 10AB, the applicant-appellant herein applied to Ld. CIT(E) seeking its registration u/s 12AB & sub clause (iii) of clause (v) of section 80G of Income Tax Act. 2. Two impugned orders dated 04.11.2024 disposed off of the above said two applicants by way of their rejection. 2 ITA Nos. 1550 to 1553/JP/2024 Kshetriy Janjati Vikas Samiti vs. CIT (E) The first mentioned application came to be rejected on the ground that the application was incomplete and that applicant had failed to prove genuineness of activities, despite amble opportunities granted to the said institution-Samiti. The other application u/s 80G was rejected on the ground that without registration of the institution-Samiti u/s 12AB, no approval under the said provision could be granted. That is how, the applicant is before this Appellate Tribunal. 3. As noticed above, only two impugned orders were passed. But, we see that appellant has come up with four appeals, instead of only two. When inquired on this aspect, Ld. AR for the appellant admits that only two appeals were required to be filed. However, he adds that vide impugned orders, Ld. CIT(E) also cancelled the provisional registration already existing in favour of the appellant, u/s 12A of the Act and under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Act, and as such, he thought it proper to challenge said order cancelling the provisional registration/approval, by way of two additional appeals. 3 ITA Nos. 1550 to 1553/JP/2024 Kshetriy Janjati Vikas Samiti vs. CIT (E) The legal position remains that only two appeals, and not four, were to be filed so as to challenge each impugned order. 4. Be that as it may, as regards the impugned orders, ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission that the matter may be remanded to Ld. CIT(E) for decision of two applications afresh. In this regard, Ld. AR submits that there was non-appearance and non- compliance on behalf of the applicant under mistaken belief. He prays that both the applications be restored to their original number for decision afresh. 5. Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the restoration of two applications before Ld. CIT(E), but, he points out to the factum of non- appearance of the applicant before Ld. CIT(E) and also non-compliance with the directions issued by that office, for effective disposal of two applications. 6. We find that in para 2 of the impugned order on application u/s 12AB, Ld. CIT(E) has specified as to why the application in Form No. 10AB was incomplete and further that despite various notices the applicant failed to make the deficiency good. 4 ITA Nos. 1550 to 1553/JP/2024 Kshetriy Janjati Vikas Samiti vs. CIT (E) We also notice that in para 3 of the impugned order on application u/s 12AB, Ld. CIT(E) has pointed out requisite details demanded from the applicant-Samiti and further that the despite issuance of several notices, the applicant failed to furnish the requisite information/documents/details. 7. As noticed above, Ld. AR for the appellant admits fault on the part of applicant in non-appearance and non-compliance during proceedings before Ld. CIT(E). The applicant was required to comply with the directions issued by Ld. CIT(E) from time to time, but it failed to do so. In this situation, Ld. CIT(E) had no option but to proceed further. However, keeping in view that the appellant claims itself to be a Samiti, the purpose for which two applications came to be filed under the relevant provisions of law, and that the matter needs to be adjudicated on merits, we deem it a fit case to afford another opportunity to the applicant to appear before Ld. CIT(E) and produce/provide all the requisite documents/details there, as and when desired by the Authority. 5 ITA Nos. 1550 to 1553/JP/2024 Kshetriy Janjati Vikas Samiti vs. CIT (E) As regards the default on the part of the appellant, we deem it appropriate to burden the appellant with costs of Rs. 2,000/- (in respect of application u/s 12AB) and Rs. 1,000/- (in respect of application u/s 80G). Result 8. As a result, all the four appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the two applications i.e., one section 12AB and other u/s 80G of the Act, are restored to the files of Ld. CIT(E) for decision afresh on merits, after providing another opportunity of being heard to the applicant. Costs to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Receipt to be produced before Learned CIT(E) before commencement of the proceedings on remand. 9. Copy of the common order be placed in the files of connected Appeals- ITA Nos. 1551 to 1553/JP/2024. Appeal files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. 6 ITA Nos. 1550 to 1553/JP/2024 Kshetriy Janjati Vikas Samiti vs. CIT (E) Order pronounced in the open court on 12/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 12/02/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Kshetriy Janjati Vikas Samiti, Bharatpur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT (Exemption), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 1550 to 1553/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "