SHIVOHUM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,JAIPUR V. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 549/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shivohum Public Charitable Trust appealing against the orders of the CIT (Exemption), Jaipur, which rejected the Trust's applications for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issues were the incompleteness of Form 10AB and questions regarding the genuineness of the Trust's activities. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemption) had provided multiple opportunities for the Trust to present its case but found non-compliance and insufficient justification for the provisional registrations. The Tribunal decided to give the Trust another opportunity to present its case, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the submitted documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711877 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. POONIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Charitable institution; Non compliance
• Section: 12A; 10B; 80G

Judgement Text

"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. 548&549/JP/2025 U/S 12AB & 80G of the Act fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear :- Shivohum Public Charitable Trust Pulse Hospital,N.H.8, Kotputli Jaipur 303 108 (Raj) cuke Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: ABHTS 1081 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 17/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 25 /07/2025 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 dated27-03- 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.548 & 549/JP/2025 SHIVOHUM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR ITA NO. 548/JP/2025 U/S 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961 1. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur by rejecting application u/s. 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional registration and nor issued Show Cause Notice for rejection of provisional registration u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional registration u/s. 12A without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular & notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same. 4. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur by rejecting provisional registration u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same. ITA NO. 549/JP/2025 U/S 80G of I.T. Act, 1961 1. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur rejected the application u/s. 80G(5) (iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong. unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case by neither recording the independent satisfaction for rejection of provisional approval and nor issued Show Cause Notice for rejection of provisional approval u/s. 80G of the 1.T. Act 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur has erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting the provisional approval u/s. 80G without issuing separate DIN of the rejection order, which is against the circular & notification issued by the CBDT. So, the same is wrong, unwarranted and bad in Law. Kindly restore the same. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO.548 & 549/JP/2025 SHIVOHUM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 4. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur by rejecting provisional approval u/s. 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same. 2.1 Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee in ITA No. 548/JP/2025, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’04. In view of above discussion assessee’s claim of registration section 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on followinggrounds:-  Incomplete Form 10AB  Non Genuineness of activities &non compliance 05. Further 12AB (1)(b)(ii) (B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfied has 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 07.04.2024 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.’’ 2.2 Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee in ITA No. 549/JP/2025, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO.548 & 549/JP/2025 SHIVOHUM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR ‘’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/EXM45/2024-25/1075128300(1) dated 27.03.2025, 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  Incomplete Form 10AB.  Non Genuineness of Activities &non compliance. 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 dated 07.04.2023 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 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). The ld.AR of the assessee 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. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO.548 & 549/JP/2025 SHIVOHUM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR Conclusively, the ld AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee trust may be provided with one more opportunity to the 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. 2.4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E). 2.5 After hearing both parties and perusing the materials available on record, we noticed that the ld. CIT(E) has granted as much as five date 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 establish the genuineness of the Activities and that the form no. 10AB filed was also incomplete. 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 was that the assessee may be provided one more chance to adduce the documents before the ld. CIT(E) to resolve the issue in question as Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO.548 & 549/JP/2025 SHIVOHUM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR the reasons advanced are curable in nature. Considering that aspect of the matter that the queries like Incomplete Form 10AB and genuineness of activities and non-compliance, the assessee trust is directed to submit all the desired documents before the ld. CIT(E) with a view to resolving 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 Incomplete Form 10B and the genuineness of the activities etc. details before the ld CIT(E). 2.6 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. 2.7 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 merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO.548 & 549/JP/2025 SHIVOHUM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR 3.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/07/2025 Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25/07/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shivohum Public Charitable Trust 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. 548 & 549/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "