9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1300 - AT - Income TaxRejection of application filed by the applicant Institution u/s 12AB - Incomplete Form 10AB Non Registration of under Rajsthan Public Trust Act 1959 and Genuineness of Activities. Non registration of the applicant under RPT Act 1959 - As held in APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust 2025 (3) TMI 22 - ITAT JAIPUR that for the purposes of registration of such institutions u/s 12AB of the Act registration under RPT Act 1959 is not one of the essential requirements. So this ground of rejection of the application does not survive any more. Incomplete Form 10AB non genuineness of the activities - In the impugned order dealing with application u/s 12AB CIT(E) has described as to in what manner the said application uploaded in Form 10AB was incomplete and also that the applicant did not remove the said deficiencies despite notices. Appellant does not dispute that the applicant did not furnish details in reply to the show cause notices. The impugned order is dated 17.03.2024. As noticed above the applicant did not reply the show cause notices. In absence of compliance by the applicant or for want of requisite details or information or documents learned CIT(E) had no option but to proceed to dispose of the application. As appellant submits that the matter may be remanded to Learned CIT(E) for decision of the application afresh after affording of opportunity to the applicant of being heard. Department does not oppose the above said submission for remand of the matter to Learned CIT(E) for decision of the application afresh. Appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose and while setting aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2024 application u/s 12AB of the Act is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) with direction for decision afresh.
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
Delay in Filing Appeal and Condonation The appellant filed the appeal after a delay of 250 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appellant's counsel explained that the delay arose due to incorrect legal advice received, which suggested first obtaining registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act before filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay was supported by an affidavit of the President of the appellant institution; however, the affidavit was defective as it lacked the deponent's signature and proper verification clause. The Tribunal noted the absence of an affidavit from the concerned advocate who gave the advice, which would have substantiated the reason for delay. Despite these deficiencies, considering the nature of the case and the date of incorporation of the trust (26.06.2014), the Tribunal exercised discretion to condone the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. This reflects the principle that procedural lapses may be excused in appropriate cases to enable substantive adjudication on merits. Requirement of Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 The impugned order had rejected the application partly on the ground that the appellant was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision which held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act is not an essential requirement for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. This precedent effectively nullified this ground of rejection, establishing that statutory registration under state public trust laws is not a precondition for claiming exemption under the Income Tax Act. Incomplete Form 10AB and Genuineness of Activities The other two grounds for rejection were that the Form 10AB submitted was incomplete and that the genuineness of the appellant's activities was in question. The CIT(Exemption) had issued show cause notices to the appellant to remedy the deficiencies in the application and provide requisite details. The appellant did not respond to these notices. In absence of compliance, the CIT(E) was constrained to reject the application. The appellant did not dispute the failure to furnish the required information but requested that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration with an opportunity to be heard. The department did not oppose this request. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the file of the CIT(E) with directions to decide afresh after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. The Tribunal also mandated that the costs imposed for delay be deposited before the CIT(E) prior to recommencement of proceedings. Significant Holdings and Principles The Tribunal held:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness by directing fresh consideration with an opportunity for the applicant to respond. It also clarified that statutory registration under state public trust laws is not a prerequisite for claiming exemption under the Income Tax Act, thus removing a significant hurdle for charitable institutions seeking registration under section 12AB.
|
