RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST,JAIPUR V. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 278/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Rudraksh Professional Education Trust appealing against the order of the CIT (E), Jaipur, which rejected their application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (E) had previously rejected the application citing reasons such as the non-genuineness of activities and the absence of a valid provisional certificate. The Trust contested these findings, arguing that the CIT (E) had not provided adequate opportunities to present their case and that the activities of the Trust were indeed genuine and educational in nature. The ITAT, after hearing both parties, decided to restore the matter to the CIT (E) for a fresh examination, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper consideration of the Trust's submissions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775621 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Additional Director of Income Tax(E) vs. Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust, CIT (Exemptions) vs. Unique Educational Society, Sila for Change Foundation Vs CIT(E), CIT V. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd., B.N. Bhattacharyajee and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: SARWAN KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority; Charitable institution; Cancellation of registration; Non compliance
• Section: 11; 12AA; 12A; 10B; 80G

Judgement Text

"1 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 278/JP/2025 U/s 12AB of the Act fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2024-25 Rudraksh Professional Education Trust Plot No. 91, Jaisinghpura Road Opp: Cement Godam, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302026 cuke Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AACTR 4843G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 16/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10 /09/2025 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 28-12-2024, seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act and thus raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1.1 The Impugned order u/s 12AA of the Act dated 28.12.2024 is bad in law and onfacts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the exparte order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence the order of is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the same kindly be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the application for grant Registration/approval u/s 12AA and in not granting Registration/approval allegations/observations, on the allegations that on the incorrect  Premature/non-maintainable application without valid provisional certificate  Business Objects  Non-Genuineness of Activities. ,which are without considering the material available on record in their true perspective and sense rather made on the wrong interpretation and wrong allegations. Hence the rejection order so made/passed by the ld. CIT(E) and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s 12AA is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, hence the same kindly be quashed. 3. That the Impugned order so passed was in the contravention of the law prevalent at the relevant point of time and also on fact and hence may kindly be quashed. The Id. CIT(E) be directed to grant Registration/approval from the dated of application.’’ 2.1 Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee in ITA No. 278/JP/2025, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act by observing at pages 19 & 20 of his order asunder:- ‘’Further, it is important to mention here that the applicant isnot authorised under any state, central or any other recognised board to impart the education. Also, the applicant did not provide any such relevant document in the support Applicant was given enough time to provide the documents, as the first questionnaire was issued on 06.09.2024, however, the applicant filed its reply after 2 month on 11.11.2024, was still incomplete. Further, the applicant was communicated to provide the details vide show cause notice dated 08.12.2024, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that the applicant has provided incomplete details in response to the questionnaire dated 06.09.2024 in addition to the incomplete details, applicant was asked to provide various other details, however, applicant has not responded till date Therefore, in the absence of reply from the applicant with regard to crucial details as asked in the questionnaire and show cause notice, it is clear that the applicants is not interest to reply even after giving enough time to file the reply Since the applicant did not file the important details for the assessment of application for registration for the reasons best known to the applicant, it is beyond doubt that Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR there are various expenses which are dubious in nature, therefore, activities of the trust, are ingenuine (in the absence of reply. From the above discussion, it is held that applicant's activities and expenses are not genuine, therefore, application for registration is liable to be rejected. 05. In view of above discussion assessee's claim of registration section 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds  Premature/non-maintainable application without valid provisional certificate  Business Objects  Non-Genuineness of Activities, 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following written submission with the prayer to quash the order of ld. CIT(E) order and direct him to grant registration. ‘’GOA-1-3: Invalid action of the Id. CIT(E) in not granting the 12A registration. FACTS: 1. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable education institute and a regular IT assessee. In the above matter the assessee had filed an application in Form No.10A for on dt. 15.04.2015 for grating the registration u/s 12AA. The Id. AO has rejected the application of the assesseee and not granted the registration on the grounds that the activity of the trust are not charitable nature as it is running the technical course vide order dt. 27.10.2015. Against the order dt. 27.10.2017 the assessee had filed the appeal before the Honble ITAT. The Honble ITAT has sent the matter for your goodself by observing as under:- \"One of the object of the assessee's trust is that to establishment of training and schooling development centre and institutions for professional education and training. As per the assessee it has been providing vocational courses which cannot be equated with any coaching institute. The assessee is also imparting professional courses. We notice that, the assessee has also other objectives as per the trust deed. Therefore, after considering the totality of the facts and in the light of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of Additional Director of Income Tax(E) vs. Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust ITA 2668/Mum/2012, where of the view that CIT should reconsidered application of the assessee for registration after considering the case laws as relied by the assessee. In view of the above discussion the application of the asseessee is restored to the file of the Id. CIT for decision afresh.\" Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR Vide order in ITA No. 338//Jp/2016 dt. 21.03.2017. Annexure-A In consequent thereto the Id. CIT(E) issued the notice dt. 16.03.2022 raising the query which has been submitted vide letter dt.12.05.2022 and 0606.2022- Annexure-B. Thereafter the Id. CIT(E) has granted the registration u/s 12AA on dt. 08.05.2024- Annexure-C, which has been granted only from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2021. Hence assessee again filed the application in Form 10B for the registration u/s 12A(1) (ac) (ii) on dt. 21.06.2024-Annexure-D. response thereto the Id. CIT(E) has issued the notice and asked various details. In response thereto the assessee filed part details as the other details are so voluminous which was not possible to file in short time vide page 6 to 16 of CIT(E) order. The Id. CIT(E) has rejected the registration of the assessee on dt. 28.12.2024 by observing as under:- Premature/non-maintainable application without valid provisional certificate Business Objects Non-Genuineness of Activities. Hence this appeal:- SUBMISSIONS: 1. No Premature/maintainable application: At the very outset it is submitted that the application was neither Premature nor maintainable. As the order of the Honble ITAT has been passed on till 08.05.2024, then how the blame or injustice can be done with the dt.21.03.20217 and the effect of that order was not given by the Id. CIT(E) assessee, when there was no default of the assessee nor assessee was having any option. Then in absence of any adverse order all the claim available to the assessee deemed to be allowable. Hence in absence of the Id. CIT(E) was of the view that the assessee should have obtained first any decision the assessee is to be deemed to be Provisionally registered. If provisionally registration (although he was not required), in that situation at the worst he himself should have provided the provisional Registration deeming the application for that purpose. As one important thingsas at the time of filling the application there was no option on the portal for applying the application under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of Sub section (1) of Section 12A. Which thing has not been taken in to consideration by the Id. CIT(E). Accordingly the assessee has filed the application in Form B for Section 12A. Then how the Id. CIT(E) can say that the Premature/non-Registration under sub-clause (ii) of clause (ac) of Sub section (1) of maintainable application without valid provisional certificate. The action of the Id. CIT(E) shows that contradiction in its own action or order. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR Prayer: Therefore your honor is humbly prayed that the Id. CIT(E) may kindly be directed to grant the registration u/s 12A(1) (ac) (iii). Alternatively and without prejudice to above if not possible then the same may kindly be directed to grant the provisional registration from 01.04.2021 to till the date for filling the another application. 2. No Commercial or no business Objects: As the allegation and observation of the Id. CIT(E) is not correct and far from the accepted earlier. As earlier the Id. CIT(E) had rejected the application on dt.27.10.2015 by alleging on the grounds that the activity of the trust are not charitable nature as it is running the technical course by deeming the business objects and the honble ITAT has deemed it education u/s 2(15) and after the Honble ITAT the Id. CIT(E) himself examined the details objects of the trust vide our letter to him (Annexure-B) during the course of setaside proceedings and the Id. CIT(E) granted the registration on 08.05.2024 u/s 12AA, if so than how he can departure from his own acceptance when there is no changes. Hence the allegation of the Id. CIT(E) should not be accepted. We rely on theorder of the Hon’ble ITAT and judgement mentioned therein. Kindly further refer. In the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs. Unique Educational Society (P&H) in ITA No. 54/2020 dt. 17.09.2024 held CHARITABLE TRUST-REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A-Educational purpose vis-a-vis providing vocational training-Vocational education is a form of education which is necessary for the development of an individual for the purpose of earning his living-As the institute is duly approved by the NCVT, it cannot be said that the institute is not imparting education-Tribunal was therefore justified in granting registration to the assessee. Copy of order is enclosed. In the case of ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) vs. SAMUDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST I.T.A.No.2668/Mum/2012 May 16, 2014 (2014) 40 CCH 0270 MumTrib Charitable Trusts-Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes-Exemption u/s. 11-Assessee was charitable trust imparting post-sea and pre-sea training to all seamen-Assessee filed return declaring total income at NIL after claiming exemption u/s. 11-AO stated that courses not approved by Directorate General of Shipping were conducted by assessee as private coaching classes and same could not be treated for charitable purposes-AO held that courses conducted by assessee were purely a commercial activity with motive to earn profit-AO disallowed exemption claimed by assessee u/s. 11-CIT(A)allowed claim of assessee-Held, in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, in ITA No.5760/Mum/2010, it was held that merely because courses were not approved by DG Shipping, could not be ground for denial of exemption u/s. 11 as long as Trust was imparting education as per its objects-Impugned Order upheld-Revenue's appeal dismissed. As the running of law, medicals, IIT, B Tech etc all are also professional course. In those case the department not disputing as educational, then how here it may be Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR disputed. Further fees received cannot be made a criteria to reject the applications, when other education institute charging more fees as per their infrastructure. Prayer: Therefore your honor is humbly prayed that the Id. CIT(E) may kindly be directed to grant the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (ii) and to be deemed charitable activities. 3. Non-Genuineness of Activities. As during the course of hearing in response to notices the assessee filed part details as the other details are so voluminous which was not possible to file in short time vide page 6 to 16 of CIT(E) order. Hence we request on this issue the matter may be restored to the Id. CIT(E) with the requirement of genuine details and oblige. 4. Hence in view of the above facts, submissions and legal position the order of the Id. CIT(E) may kindly be quashed and the Id. CIT(E) may kindly be directed to grant the registration and oblige.’’ Further, the ld. AR of the assessee vide his letter dated 15-07-2025 has submitted his following comments on the report of ld. CIT(E) dated 4-07-2025. ‘’RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST, JAIPUR V/S CIT(E), JAIPUR IN APPEAL NO. ITA-278/JPR/2025 U/S 12A OF THE I. T. ACT. PAN AACTR4843G COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF CIT(E) DT. 04.07.2025 1. Your honor in the above matter the Id. CIT(E) has send his report dt. 04.07.2025, which is received by us on 15.07.2025. In this regard it is submitted that 1.1 In para 1 the Id. CIT(E) has stated about the Form No. which is no force as per his own and Form is also enclosed with the paper book. 1.2 In para 2 page 2 he referred the order of the Honble ITAT Mumbai Bench which is not applicable in the present case and the facts altogether different vise as under:- Assessee Mumbai Bench Incorporated in before 2015 and before 01.04.2021 or before amendment Incorporated on 28.07.2021 after amendment ITAT Appeal Effect Matter and Seta side matter No ITAT appeal effect matter, No set aside matter Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR No appeal effect given till May 2024 No appeal effect matter Neither Provisional Registration nor Permanent registration granted. As no decision given by the Id. CIT(A) before 08.05.2024 on provisional as well as on permanent Earlier Provisional registration granted and the Id. CIT(E) was required to make inquiry 2. In the present case the Id. CIT(E) has not stated what is the option with the assessee for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2025 when there is no default of the assessee, He has not commented for the delay in giving the appeal effect and for taking the time of 8 years. 3. Further when there is no option on the Portal to apply for the registration as per the facts of the case of the assessee, then how the assessee can aply and do as per the CIT(E). 4. There is contradiction in para 3 and 4. As in para 3 the Id. CIT(E) has stated that the assessee has not filed any evidence regarding the technical glitches. And in para 4 he has admitted that the DIT(CPC) can only issue the provisional approval only on the application in form 10A filed by the assessee with in time limit prescribed under law. As due to default of the CIT(E) and delay in giving the appeal effect there was no option on the portal for such long time gape and time limit. He has not stated who will grant the provisional registration from 01.04.2021 to till date and how a innocent assessee can get the same when there was no mistake of assesee rather the same was CIT(E) who has not granted the appeal effect and registration till 08.05.2024. 5. The Id. CIT(E) comments on legal experts and CBDT circular No. 07/2024. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee has applied as per the advice which was given by the counsel as per counsel wisdom and looking to the facts of the case. And when the assessee has applied u/s 12A(1)(ac) (iii), then it was the duty of the Id. CIT(E) to give benefit and to refer the same while giving the order when the order was passed on 08.05.2024 while the circular was dt. 25.04.2024 before it and was having in his knowledge. 6. On the commercial activities it is submitted that stated that the Honble ITAT has considered the activities of the assessee and the Id. CIT(E) itself has accepted the same that is why he has given the registration on 08.05.2024 u/s 12AA. Hence the report of the Id.. CIT (E) itself contradictory their own action. 7. Hence in view of the above facts, submissions and legal position the order of the Id. CIT(E) may kindly be quashed and the Id. CIT(E) may kindly be directed to grant the registration and oblige.’’ Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(E) who vide his letter dated 14-07-2025 filed the report of the AO dated 04-07-2025 wherein the AO submitted the counter reply of ld.CIT(E)on the submission of the assessee in case of Ruderaksh Professional Education Trust, (ITA No. 278/JPR/2025) which is reproduced as under:- आयकरͪवभाग भारतसरकारकाया[लय Office of the आयकरआयुÈत (छ ूट), Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), क ैलाशहाईɪस, तृतीयतल, लालकोठȤटॉकरोड़, जयपुर-302015 Kailash Heights, 3rd Floor, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015 [e-mail] Ph-0141-2740869 No. CIT(E)/ITO(TRO)/JPR/2025-26/246 Dated: 04-07-2025 To, The Commissioner of Income Tax(DR-II) ITAT, Jaipur Sir, Subject-Counter reply on the submission of assesse in the case of Rudraksh Professional Education Trust, PAN-AACTR4843G, in ITA No. 278/JPR/2025 reg- Kindly refer to the above. In this connection it submitted that the reply of assesse forwarded by you has been considered and point wise reply on assesse's submission is as under :- 1. The assesse has submitted wrong facts before the Hon'ble Tribunal as in its reply(page No. 2) has submitted that \"application in form 10B for the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (ii) on dt. 21.06.2024.\" However, application in form 10AB for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (iii) was filed on 29.06.2024. Further, on page no. 3, the assesse itself has stated that application was filed in Form B for registration under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A. There is no prescribed Form B for registration. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 2. Further, following points are worth consideration in rebuttal to the assessee'ssubmission:- A) The assesse filed application in Form 10AB for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) filed on 29.06.2024. Provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) states that: ‘’Where the trust or institution has provisionally registered under section 12AB (or provisionally approved under sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub- clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10], at least six months prior to expiry of period of the provisional registration (or provisional approval, as the case may be, or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier;\" During the proceedings of registration u/s 12A the assesse was specially asked vide show cause notice dated 08.12.2024 at point no. 12 to give details as if it had any valid provisional certificate. The assesse has not filed any reply in this regard. As per office record the assesse has no valid provisional registration. Hence, application of the assesse was rejected. B) It is noted that Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Sila for Change Foundation Vs CIT(E) [IT Appeal No. 4274 & 4275 (Mum) of 2024, dated 20.12.2024] had carried out a detailed analysis of the pre-amended and the post-amended provisions and various decisions on this issue categorically observing the difference in the provisons and that the earlier decisions that was rendered in the context of pre-amended provisions of section 12A, would no longer be applicable after the \"specified violation\" having clarified in the amended provisions of section 12AB of the Act. The relevant observations of Mumbai ITAT Bench were as under :- \"4. The process of obtaining registration under section 12A has undergone change that is detailed as under; i) Up to 31.03.2021 the registration/approval was permanent in nature. ii) During the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.09.2023, this was the period of two step registration i.e. first provisional and subsequently regular registration. iii) Amended process w.e.f. 01.10.2023 where in only organizations who have not started any activity may apply for provisional registration and where the activity is commenced then direct application for five-year registration is permissible. …… The key features of registration under the amended scheme from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2023 under section 12AB are as under: (1) Concept of provisional registration introduced for charity institutions is applicable to all applying for the first time, irrespective of whether they are new or existing institutions. (ii) Concept of perpetuity of registration stands withdrawn under the new scheme and provisional registration is valid for a maximum period of 3 years. The provisional registration is subsequently required to be regularized into five years regular Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR registration within six months of commencement of activities or at least 6 months before the expiry of the provisional registration period. (iil) All the existing trusts or institutions which were registered under section 124/12AA or approved under section 10(23C) and section 80G are mandatorily required to obtain registration under new scheme of registration under section 12AB or to obtain approval under section 10(23C) and section 80G. The registration/approval shall remain valid for a period of five years from 1 April, 2021 i.e. from the AY: 2022-23. (iv) Registration/approval was subject to renewal every 5 years.\" C) As per section 12AB and Rule 17, the assessee is required to pass through following two stages: a) Firstly, the application is to be filed in Form 10A for provisional registration. The provisional registration is granted in new regime in Form No. 10 AC by the CPC without any inquiry. b) In the second stage, this provisional registration is required to be converted into regular registration. The application for conversion is to be filed in Form 10AB at least 6 months before the expiry of the provisional registration period or within 6 months of the commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. For Converting provisional registration into final registration, procedure is identical to what it was prevailing prior to 01.04.2021, under section 12AB(1)(b)(i). That is, PCIT/CIT shall call for such documents or information or make such inquiries as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution and the compliances of other laws. The relevant provisions are as under:- (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on receipt of an application made under clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, shall, a) where the application is made under sub-clause (i) of the said clause, pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution for a period of five years; b) where the application is made under sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or subclause (iv) or sub-clause (v) 66[or item (B) of sub-clause (vi)] of the said clause,- i) call for such documents or information from the trust or institution or make such inquiries as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about- a) the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution; and b) the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects; Thus once the Ld.PCIT/CIT is satisfied on above aspects, then registration shall be granted in Form 10AD. In other case the application will stand rejected after granting an opportunity of being heard (as per section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act). Further, according to Sub-section 4 and 5 of section 12AB inserted by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, Ld.PCIT/CIT may cancel the registration if it is found that, the activities are not genuine or are not carried out in accordance with the objects of trust/institution. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR D) In the instant appeal under consideration, the appellant has not obtained any provisional registration from CPC in Form 10 AC which is mandatory requirement for obtaining regular registration in the facts of the appellants case. For seeking Provisional Registration, apart from the documents and information required for filing application under Form 10A, no other information will be sought for granting provisional registration. The relevant provision of section 12AB is reproduced as under:- (1)The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on receipt of an application made under clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A,shall (a)... (b)... (c) where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period of three years from the assessment year from which the registration is sought. Here it is pertinent to refer to Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rule 1962 which are reproduced below for ready reference :- \"17A. (1) An application under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A for registration of a charitable or religious trust or institution (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') shall be made in the following Form, namely:- (i) Form No. 10A in case of application under[sub-clause (i) or item (A) of sub- clause) (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board, or (4) Form No. 10A or 10AB, as the case may be, shall be verified by the person who is authorised to verify the return of income under section 140, as applicable to the applicant. (5) On receipt of an application in Form No. 10A, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, authorised by the Board shall pass an order in writing granting registration under clause (a), or clause (c), of sub-section (1) of section 12AB read with sub-section (3) of the said section in Form No.10AC and issue a sixteen digit alphanumeric Unique Registration Number (URN) to the applicants making application as per clause (i) of sub- rule (1). (6) If, at any point of time, it is noticed that Form No. 10A has not been duly filled in by not providing, fully or partly, or by providing false or incorrect information or documents required to be provided under sub-rule (1) or (2) or by not complying with the requirements of sub-rule (3) or (4), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. as referred to in sub-rule (5), after giving an opportunity of being heard, may cancel the registration in Form No. 10AC and Unique Registration Number (URN), issued under sub- Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR rule (5), and such registration or such UniqueRegistration Number (URN) shall be deemed to have never been grassed or issued (7) In case of an application made under sub-clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of [Section 12A as it stood immediately before its amendment vide the Finance Act, 2023] during previous year beginning on 1st day of April, 2021, the provisional registration shall be effective from the assessment year beginning onIst day of April 2022 (8) In case of an application made in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of sub-rule (1), the order of registration or rejection or cancellation of registration under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12AB shall be in Form No. 10AD and in case if the registration is granted, sixteen digit alphanumeric numer, Unique Registration Number (URN) shall be issued by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner referred to in sub- section (1)of Section12AB. (9) The Principal Director General of Income-tax (System) or the Director General of Income-tax (Systems), as the case may be, shall (i) lay down the form, data structure, standards and procedure of,- (a) furnishing and verification of Form No. 10A or 10AB, as the case may be (b) passing the order under clause (a) , sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) and clause (c) of sub- section (1) of Section 12AB; (ii) be responsible for formulating and implementing appropriate security, archival and retrieval policies in relation to thesaid application made or and or order so passedas the case may be]’’ E) It is further important to note that in Rule 17A (5) for the purpose of Form No. 10A (related to provisional registration) the Director of Income Tax (Centralized Processing Centre), Bengaluru has been authorized by the CBDT vide Notification No. SO 1443(E), dated 1-4-2021, as amended by Notification No. SO 2161 (E), dated 09.05.2022 Therefore, assesse claim is not acceptable and may be rejected 3. The claim of the assesse regarding no option on the portal for applying the application under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub section (1) of Section 12A, is not acceptable as during the registration proceedings u/s 12A the assesse has neither filed any submission nor filed any evidence with regard to technical glitches. Before the Hon'ble Tribunal the assessee has raised this issue first time however no supporting documents have been submitted. Further, it is matter of record that the appellant has remained non compliant during the registration/verification proceedings u/s 12AB that too on the application made by the appellant. Therefore, assesse claim is not acceptable and may be rejected. Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 4. The assesse pleaded before the tribunal that CIT(E) may be directed to grant the provisional registration from 01.04.2021 to till the date for filing the another application. It is worth to mention here that CIT(E) has no power to issue provisional approval and the same is to be issued by the Director of Income-tax (CPC) as he is the authorized as per the notification referred above. Further, DIT(CPC) can only issue provisional approval only on the application in form 10A filed by the assesse within the time limit prescribed under law. The appellant has never filed Form 10A to the competent authority for obtaining provisional registration. So he can't be granted any provisional registration suo- moto. Further, it is clarified that in this case the assessee has registered u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is to be noted that It is to be noted that the appellant was earlier issued approval u/s 12AA on 08.05.2024 in the set aside proceedings under the old regime. The assesse is assisted by competent team of legal experts for the registration process. The assesse had ample time of approximately two months to apply for regular certificate u/s u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i). Therefore, the assessee should have obtained regular certificate from CPC u/s 12A(1)(ac) (i) of the I.T. Act up to 30.06.2024 as per the CBDT instruction No. 7/2024. 5. On the issue of No Commercial or no business objects :- As per the object of the trust deed the object mentioned in MOA/Deed are related to activities of commercial/business nature i.e. \"Establishment of training and skill development centre and institutions for professional education and training\" In this regard vide show cause notice dated 09.10.2024 the assessee was asked to furnish explanation on this issue. However, no reply was filed during the registration proceedings u/s 12A, therefore application was decided as per material available on record. Further, as per the record, the applicant is operating coaching centre and offering professional services rather than charitable activities. The substantial fee income received across multiple F.Ys. ranging from 76.93 lakh in F.Y. 2020-21 to 2.88 crore in F.Y. 2022- 23. The applicant is generating revenue through services, which typically involves a commercial aspect. During the earlier set aside proceedings, in which the appellant was granted approval u/s 12AA on 08.05.2024 for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2021 the assesse had submitted documents/accounts up to 31.03.2022. However, in the proceedings under consideration, the appellant is seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) for the A.Y. starting 01.04.2022. The application in form 10 AB for the same was filed on 29.06.2024. Therefore, the CIT was mandated to examine the documents/accounts as on the date of application. These accounts/documents related to activities for the period of more than two years were never produced before the CIT for examination even when asked for. Thus the contention of the appellant that the assesse has produced the documents/accounts before the CIT in set aside proceedings of the old regime and the CIT should not have asked these accounts for the new application in new regime can not Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR be accepted. These two proceedings are totally different under different provisions for different period. The argument therefore does not hold ground. 6. On the issue of Non-Genuineness of activities and non compliance:-During the registration proceedings u/s 12A, the assessee filed only partly reply even after providing 04 opportunities. In absence of reply/submission, genuineness of activity could not be prove and therefore the application of assessee rejected on this ground. In the case of CIT V. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 (ITA No. 798 of 2009), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that a negligent assesse should not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assesse for his negligence. When the assesse is non-cooperative, it can naturally be safely concluded that the assesse did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non-genuineness. Further, in the case of B.N. Bhattacharyajee and others (1979) 10 CTR 354 (SC) it was observed that preferring in appeal means effectively pursuing it. Here the application was filed by the appellant but it was not pursued by not responding to the questionnaire/show cause notices issued by the CIT. Therefore, the appellant should not be provided favourable treatment by setting aside the case. The assesse appellant has no regard for the precious time of the CIT(E) as well as that of Hon'ble ITAT. During the present proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal the assessee itself accepted that during the course of hearing the assessee filed part details and the other details were not submitted. In view of the above facts and the legal discussion, the appeal of the assesse deserves to be dismissed in toto.’’ In nut shell, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee before the ITAT itself accepted that it had filed the part details and other details were not submitted and thus appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed in view of the counter reply filed by the ld. CIT(E), supra. The relevant para No.6 quoted by the ld. DR is reproduced as under:- ‘’6. On the issue of Non-Genuineness of activities and non compliance:-During the registration proceedings u/s 12A, the assessee filed only partly reply even after providing 04 opportunities. In absence of reply/submission, genuineness of activity could not be prove and therefore the application of assessee rejected on this ground. In the case of CIT V. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 (ITA No. 798 of 2009), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that a negligent Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR assesse should not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assesse for his negligence. When the assesse is non-cooperative, it can naturally be safely concluded that the assesse did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non-genuineness. Further, in the case of B.N. Bhattacharyajee and others (1979) 10 CTR 354 (SC) it was observed that preferring in appeal means effectively pursuing it. Here the application was filed by the appellant but it was not pursued by not responding to the questionnaire/show cause notices issued by the CIT. Therefore, the appellant should not be provided favourable treatment by setting aside the case. The assesse appellant has no regard for the precious time of the CIT(E) as well as that of Hon'ble ITAT. During the present proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal the assessee itself accepted that during the course of hearing the assessee filed part details and the other details were not submitted. In view of the above facts and the legal discussion, the appeal of the assesse deserves to be dismissed in toto.’’ 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the assessee is ex-parte before the ld.CIT(E) as the ld.CIT(E) had provided four times opportunities to file the desired documents/ information but the same could not be submitted and thus the ld. CIT(E) rejected the registration u/s 12AB of the Act for the following reasons:-  Premature/non-maintainable application without valid provisional certificate  Business Objects  Non-Genuineness of Activities The Bench directs the assessee to submit the required documents/ information before the ld. CIT(E) to end the apple of discord and forward the same information as is produced before this Bench. Hence, in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal of the assessee is restored Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA NO. 278/JPR/2025 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for consideration and providing relief to the assessee in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 10 /09 /2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ 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:- 10 / 09 /2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Rudraksh Professional Education Trust, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ld CIT (Exemption), 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. 278/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "