Radha Govind Goshala Samiti Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Jaipur)
CIT(E) Cannot Decide Maintainability of Appeal Against Its Own Order: State Trust Law Does Not Bar ITAT Remedy
Background of the dispute
The assessee society held registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G, granted through the Centralised Processing Centre. It applied in Form 10AB for renewal of registration on 27 September 2025 and renewal of approval on 29 September 2025.
The CIT(E) issued a deficiency letter dated 30 January 2026, fixing compliance for 4 February 2026. The assessee did not respond. Both applications were rejected on 11 February 2026. Neither order referred to a separate show-cause notice communicating the proposed grounds of rejection.
The registration application was rejected because the assessee had not furnished copies of its earlier registration and approval orders or a note on activities. The CIT(E) also relied on the absence of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959. The section 80G application was rejected consequentially.
The orders additionally stated that separate proceedings would be initiated to cancel the existing registration and approval. Thus, the orders under appeal rejected the renewal applications; they did not themselves complete cancellation of the existing benefits.
Missing documents were curable deficiencies
The Tribunal observed that earlier registration and approval orders were largely available in the Department’s own records. Although Rule 17A(2)(e) requires a self-certified copy of an existing registration order, omission to attach it was capable of correction through submission or departmental verification.
Similarly, the missing activity note was a deficiency that could be remedied. These omissions did not, by themselves, establish that the society’s objects were non-charitable or that its activities lacked genuineness.
Relying on Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha v. CIT(E), the Tribunal distinguished substantive eligibility defects from curable procedural deficiencies. Its reasoning did not excuse substantive non-compliance. It recognised that incomplete forms and missing documents should receive an opportunity for correction where legally permissible.
State-law compliance remained relevant
The CIT(E) relied on New Noble Educational Society v. CCIT to emphasise compliance with applicable State legislation.
The Tribunal accepted that such compliance could be relevant under section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B). However, its consequences required examination of the particular facts, including whether the deficiency was capable of being cured, rather than automatic rejection.
Significantly, the Tribunal left open the wider question whether registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act is a mandatory prerequisite in every case. The decision therefore cannot be read as dispensing with State-law registration or declaring it irrelevant to section 12AB proceedings.
A civil-suit restriction cannot extinguish the statutory appeal
The CIT(E) further invoked section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act and Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan v. Nand Lal to suggest that an unregistered public trust could not maintain an appeal before the ITAT.
The Tribunal rejected this approach. Section 29 concerns the hearing and determination of a suit enforcing a right on behalf of an unregistered public trust in a Court. An appeal under the Income-tax Act is a distinct statutory remedy.
Moreover, the Supreme Court decision relied upon recognised that a suit could be instituted, with its hearing withheld until registration. The restriction was therefore capable of being cured.
The right of appeal arose under section 253(1)(c). Whether that appeal was maintainable was for the Tribunal to determine. The CIT(E), whose order was being challenged, had no authority to pronounce upon its admissibility. That observation exceeded the scope of the registration proceedings and was disregarded.
Fresh examination ordered, subject to cooperation
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee’s responsibility for not responding to the deficiency letter. Nevertheless, only one opportunity had been given, and the substantive claim remained unexamined.
It therefore set aside the section 12AB rejection and restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee must furnish the earlier orders, activity note and its position regarding State-law registration.
The CIT(E) may examine all relevant aspects, conduct necessary inquiries and pass a speaking order after reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the assessee again defaults without reasonable cause, the application may be decided on the available record.
The consequential section 80G rejection was also set aside. That application must be considered after the section 12AB application is decided, with independent examination of all applicable conditions. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, without any opinion on substantive entitlement.
Author’s comments
The ruling protects access to a statutory appellate remedy while preserving scrutiny of charitable eligibility. An authority cannot restrict an appeal against its own order by extending a civil-suit provision beyond its scope.
Equally, remand is not registration or approval. Missing documents must still be supplied, State-law compliance remains relevant, and section 80G conditions require separate examination. The additional opportunity offers the assessee a chance to establish its claim; it does not justify continued non-compliance.
Cases Discussed
- Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha v. CIT (Exemption), ITA No. 497/Jodh/2025 and connected appeals, ITAT Jodhpur, order dated 14.08.2026 — Relied upon for distinguishing substantive eligibility defects from curable deficiencies in the presentation of registration applications.
- New Noble Educational Society v. CCIT, [2022] 448 ITR 594 (Supreme Court) — Considered regarding compliance with other applicable laws as a relevant factor in examining charitable institutions.
- Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan v. Nand Lal, AIR 2017 SC 3603 (Supreme Court) — Considered and distinguished; the restriction under section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act concerns hearing and deciding civil suits, not the statutory appeal before the ITAT.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
1. These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against two orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(E)”], both dated 11.02.2026 and passed in Form No. 10AD under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). By the order impugned in ITA No. 423/JPR/2026, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application of the Assessee for registration under section 12AB of the Act. By the order impugned in ITA No. 424/JPR/2026, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application of the Assessee for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. As the second order follows from the first, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee in ITA No. 423/JPR/2026 read as under:
“1. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur by rejecting application u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.
2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”
The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee in ITA No. 424/JPR/2026 read as under:
“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)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly direct to register the same.
2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessee, a society, holds registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act and approval under clause (i) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act granted by the CPC. For renewal, it filed applications in Form No. 10AB on 27.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act and on 29.09.2025 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. In each case, the learned CIT(E) issued a single deficiency letter dated 30.01.2026, with 04.02.2026 as the date of compliance. The Assessee did not reply. No show cause notice is referred to in either order. The reasons for rejection are summarised below:
| Appeal | Application | Grounds of rejection |
|---|---|---|
| ITA No. 423/JPR/2026 | Registration under section 12AB of the Act | (i) Form No. 10AB incomplete, since the registration under section 12AA and the approval under section 80G granted prior to the new regime, on the basis of which the CPC granted registration and approval, and a note on the activities of the applicant, were not furnished; (ii) the Assessee is not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959. |
| ITA No. 424/JPR/2026 | Approval under section 80G(5) of the Act | Approval under section 80G of the Act cannot be granted without registration under section 12AB of the Act, which was rejected by the order of the same date. The two grounds of rejection in that order were also referred to. |
4. In both orders, the learned CIT(E) has also stated that proceedings for cancellation of the existing registration and approval will be initiated separately. Neither order records any finding on the objects of the Assessee or the genuineness of its activities.
5. The learned Authorised Representative (hereinafter referred to as “the learned AR”) submitted that the rejection of the applications on the grounds stated was not justified and prayed that registration and approval be granted. He also stressed that the Assessee was given only one opportunity that too with a short notice. The learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as “the learned DR”) relied on the impugned orders.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We first take up ITA No. 423/JPR/2026, as the outcome of ITA No. 424/JPR/2026 depends on it.
7. As regards the first reason for rejection, the documents which the Assessee is said to have omitted are, for the most part, orders of registration and approval passed by the Income Tax Department itself, which are available in its own records. Rule 17A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 requires a self-certified copy of the existing order granting registration to accompany the application. The absence of such a copy, or of the note on activities, is a deficiency in the manner of presentation of the application. It can be cured by furnishing the documents or by verification from the departmental records. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Jodhpur, in Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha v. CIT (Exemption) (ITA No. 497/Jodh/2025 and connected appeals), order dated 14.08.2026, has made this distinction at paragraph 16 as under:
“16. … In dealing with such cases, a distinction necessarily has to be maintained between a defect which goes to the substantive eligibility of an applicant and one which inheres merely in the manner in which the statutory application has been presented. The former cannot be cured by treating it as a procedural irregularity; the latter may, depending upon the statutory framework, admit of rectification. Thus, an incomplete form, an inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause or absence of a document capable of being subsequently furnished ought not ordinarily to foreclose examination of the substantive claim if the defect is legally capable of being cured.”
8. As regards the second reason, the learned CIT(E) has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Noble Educational Society v. CCIT [2022] 448 ITR 594 (SC). The relevant observation at paragraph 70 of the judgment reads as under:
“70. In view of the above discussion, it is held that charitable institutions and societies, which may be regulated by other state laws, have to comply with them-just as in the case of laws regulating education (at all levels). Compliance with or registration under those laws, are also a relevant consideration which can legitimately weigh with the Commissioner or other concerned authority, while deciding applications for approval under Section 10 (23C).”
9. Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Act requires the learned CIT(E) to satisfy himself about the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force as are material for the purpose of achieving the objects of the trust or institution. Compliance with the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the RPT Act”) is thus a relevant consideration. At the same time, the question whether a deficiency of this nature, once it is in the process of being cured, should result in the outright rejection of the application is a matter that requires consideration on the facts of each case. It is not necessary for us, in the present appeal, to decide the wider question whether registration under the RPT Act is a mandatory pre-condition in every case, and we express no view on it.
10. The learned CIT(E) has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan v. Nand Lal, AIR 2017 SC 3603, to observe that an appeal before the Tribunal by an unregistered trust is not admissible in view of section 29 of the RPT Act. Section 29 of the RPT Act bars the hearing and deciding of a suit to enforce a right on behalf of an unregistered public trust in any Court. An appeal before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act is a statutory remedy against an order of an income tax authority and is not a suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that very judgment has explained the nature of the bar at paragraphs 21 and 22 as under:
“21) Section 29 creates a bar “for hearing and deciding a suit” filed by the public Trust for enforcement of any of their rights, if the said Trust is not registered under the Act. The bar, therefore, applies for “hearing and deciding” a suit and not in filing the suit. In other words, suit can be filed by the unregistered Trust but such suit will neither be heard nor decided by the Court unless and until the Trust is registered under the Act. Section 29 is, therefore, operates as stay of proceedings in the suit so long as the Trust does not get itself registered under the Act.
22) A fortorari, the moment the Trust is registered under the Act, the Trial Court would assume the jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit on merits. The bar created under Section 29 of the Act for “hearing and deciding” the suit is then lifted and ceases to apply to the proceedings in the suit.”
11. The judgment thus treats the absence of registration under the RPT Act as a deficiency which ceases to operate once registration is obtained. It does not support the view that the appeal before us is not maintainable.
12. We may also observe that the right of appeal against an order rejecting an application for registration is conferred on the Assessee by section 253(1)(c) of the Act. Whether such an appeal is maintainable is for the Tribunal alone to decide. The learned CIT(E), whose order is itself the subject matter of the appeal, has no authority to pronounce on the admissibility of an appeal against that very order. His function under section 12AB of the Act is confined to deciding the application for registration. The observation in the impugned order that an appeal before the Tribunal by a trust not registered under the RPT Act is not admissible is, therefore, beyond the scope of the proceedings before the learned CIT(E), and we disregard it.
13. The impugned order was passed on the basis of a single deficiency letter, without any show cause notice confronting the Assessee with the proposed grounds of rejection. Paragraph 3.6 of the order records that the letter dated 30.01.2026 required the Assessee to furnish the documents by 12.12.2025, a date which precedes the letter itself, although the table in the order shows 04.02.2026 as the date of compliance. At the same time, the Assessee did not respond to the letter at all, and must share the responsibility for the present situation.
14. Having regard to the fact that the substantive claim of the Assessee has not been examined, we consider it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee, subject to its full cooperation.
15. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the application in Form No. 10AB dated 27.09.2025 is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The learned CIT(E) shall be free to examine all aspects of the application and to call for such documents, information and explanations, and make such inquiries, as may be considered necessary. The Assessee shall be at liberty to place on record the earlier orders of registration and approval referred to in the impugned order, a note on its activities and the position regarding its registration under the RPT Act, and the learned CIT(E) shall consider the same. If the Assessee fails to comply without reasonable cause, the learned CIT(E) shall be at liberty to decide the application on the basis of the material on record. The Assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and furnish the details called for without delay. The learned CIT(E) shall pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. We express no opinion on the merits of the application.
16. Ground 1 in ITA No. 423/JPR/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground 2 is general in nature and requires no adjudication.
17. In ITA No. 424/JPR/2026, the application for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act has been rejected only because the application for registration under section 12AB of the Act stood rejected. Once the underlying order relating to section 12AB is being set aside and the application is required to be considered in terms of the specific findings recorded hereinabove, the corresponding rejection under section 80G, founded substantially upon the absence of such registration, cannot independently survive on that premise. The particular impediment which weighed with the learned CIT(E) would necessarily have to be reconsidered in the light of the ultimate determination of the application under section 12AB. Consequently, application under section 80G also requires to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) so that the same may be considered after, or alongside, the corresponding proceedings under section 12AB.
18. As the order in ITA No. 423/JPR/2026 has been set aside, the rejection of the application under section 80G(5) of the Act, which rests on that order, cannot survive. The impugned order in ITA No. 424/JPR/2026 is set aside and the application in Form No. 10AB dated 29.09.2025 is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after the application for registration under section 12AB of the Act is decided. The learned CIT(E) shall be free to examine all the conditions governing approval under section 80G of the Act. The Assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings. The learned CIT(E) shall pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. We express no opinion on the merits of the application. Ground 1 in ITA No. 424/JPR/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground 2 is general in nature and requires no adjudication.
19. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08.10.2026
