Shree Bidasar Gaushala and Charitable Trust Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Jaipur)
Section 12AB Registration Rejection Upheld as Trust Fails to Establish Genuine Activities
Introduction
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, upheld rejection of the registration application filed by Shree Bidasar Gaushala and Charitable Trust. The Tribunal noted that the trust had failed to substantiate the genuineness of its activities or establish registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
The application had also been rejected on grounds concerning maintainability, the absence of a dissolution clause and non-compliance. Before the Tribunal, the trust remained unrepresented despite three notices having been issued and served.
After examining the available record and hearing the Revenue, the Bench found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(E)’s order and dismissed the appeal.
Background of the Application
The trust, situated at Bidasar in Churu district, Rajasthan, submitted an application in Form 10AB under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking registration under Section 12AB.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur, rejected the application through an order dated 21 January 2026.
The rejection concerned both the manner in which the application had been filed and the trust’s failure to establish compliance with the matters examined during registration proceedings.
Aggrieved by that decision, the trust filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 21 March 2026, seeking to set aside the rejection.
Grounds Raised by the Trust
In its appeal, the trust challenged the CIT(E)’s reliance on four principal grounds: filing the application under the wrong clause, absence of a dissolution clause in the trust deed, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and failure to establish genuine activities coupled with non-compliance.
The trust therefore disputed both the procedural and substantive reasons underlying rejection of its application.
However, the Tribunal’s order does not record developed arguments or additional evidence from the trust explaining why those findings should be reversed. Its consideration proceeded on the documents already available because no representative appeared to support the appeal.
The distinction between raising a ground and substantiating it became relevant to the outcome.
Partial Reply Followed by Non-Compliance
The Tribunal examined the proceedings before the CIT(E). It recorded that the trust had filed a partial reply on one hearing date.
A show-cause notice was subsequently issued, but the trust did not comply with it. Consequently, the queries and requirements arising during the registration examination remained unanswered.
The Bench observed that the trust had effectively failed to appear and comply with the conditions necessary to establish the genuineness of its activities.
It also noted that the record did not establish whether the trust was registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
Thus, the Tribunal’s conclusion rested on deficiencies that remained unresolved in the registration proceedings, rather than solely on the trust’s absence at the appellate hearing.
Non-Appearance Before the Tribunal
After the appeal was filed, three notices were issued and served upon the trust. Nevertheless, nobody appeared on its behalf to assist the Bench.
The Tribunal accordingly decided to examine the appeal with the assistance of the Departmental Representative and the material available on record.
The appeal was therefore considered through examination of the impugned order and the recorded compliance history. The Tribunal did not grant another opportunity or restore the application to the CIT(E).
This procedural outcome is significant because the trust’s challenge ultimately failed at the Tribunal stage, leaving the registration rejection undisturbed.
Tribunal’s Findings
The Bench recorded the CIT(E)’s grounds concerning maintainability, non-registration under the state legislation, the missing dissolution clause, genuineness of activities and non-compliance.
It then focused on the trust’s failure to respond adequately before the CIT(E). The partial reply did not resolve the requirements, and the subsequent show-cause notice remained unanswered.
In particular, the trust had not demonstrated the genuineness of its activities or proved on record its registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act.
Considering these circumstances together, the Tribunal held that there was no basis to interfere with the CIT(E)’s decision.
The order did not separately develop a detailed legal ruling on each objection. Accordingly, its conclusion should be understood in the context of the combined deficiencies and unrebutted findings before the Bench.
Decision and Significance
The Tribunal dismissed the trust’s appeal, thereby upholding the rejection of its application for registration under Section 12AB.
The ruling highlights the importance of responding substantively to registration queries and supporting an appellate challenge with relevant material. A partial response followed by non-compliance left the trust unable to displace the adverse findings.
It does not establish, through separate analysis, that every technical defect identified would independently justify rejection in every case. The decision concerns the application and compliance record before the Tribunal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
The Appellants, Shree Bidasar Gaushala and Charitable Trust by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the ground that:-
“1. The learned CIT(E) has erred in facts and in law in rejecting the application filed by the assessee u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act, 1961 on the ground that (i) application has been filed in wrong clause and (ii) absence of dissolution clause in trust deed and (iii) non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act and (iv) genuineness of activities and non-compliance.
2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.
3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”
2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: Appellant’s application moved in Form No. 10AB, seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was rejected on ground of non maintainability and for want of non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “RPT Act, 1959”)
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E), appellant has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
4. We have heard Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file.
5. The present appeal was filed on 21.03.2026 and since then three notices were issued and served upon the appellant but none come present on behalf of him to assist the Bench to deal with the present appeal. Consequently the Bench has decided to deal with the present appeal with the assistance of the Ld. DR for the Revenue on the basis of material available on record.
6. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(E), who has rejected the application filed by the appellant on ground of non maintainability and non registration under RPT Act, 1959, absence of dissolution clause and failure to prove the genuineness of activities and non compliance.
7. During proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) on one date of hearing, it has filed part reply and thereafter show cause notice was issued, to which non compliance has been made by the appellant. Virtually the appellant did not appear to comply with the conditions to prove the genuineness of its activities, nor it has proved on file, if it was registered under RPT Act, 1959. So in these circumstances we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E).
8. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26-10-2026.
