Laveena Vikas Seva Sansthan Vs CIT(Exemption) (ITAT Jaipur)
Jaipur ITAT: U/s 12AB & 80G Applications Cannot Be Rejected Ex Parte Merely Because Notices Were “Issued”-CIT(E) Must Establish Service and Provide Reasonable Opportunity
The assessee-trust had applied for registration u/s 12AB and consequential approval u/s 80G. The CIT(E), Jaipur rejected both applications essentially on account of the assessee’s non-appearance, citing deficiencies such as incomplete Form 10AB, non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, non-genuineness of activities and non-compliance.
The CIT(E)’s orders recorded that notices had been issued by email on 24.10.2025, 27.10.2025 and 11.11.2025, but the assessee did not appear. On this basis, the applications were disposed of ex parte without deciding them on merits.
The ITAT noticed a fundamental defect in this approach. Although the orders stated that several notices had been issued within about one month, there was no finding whatsoever that any of those notices had actually been served upon the assessee-trust.
The Tribunal held that mere issuance of notices, without establishing their service, cannot justify proceeding ex parte against an assessee. Doing so amounts to denial of a reasonable opportunity of being heard and violation of principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the ITAT set aside both orders of the CIT(E) and directed him to decide the applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G afresh on merits, after providing the trust a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The appeals were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Key takeaway: For an ex-parte rejection, it is not enough for the CIT(E) merely to record that notices were “issued.” There must be material showing that the notices were actually served. In the absence of proof of service, rejection of 12AB/80G applications for non-compliance violates natural justice and the matter must be reconsidered after giving a proper opportunity of hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
Appellant- Laveena Vikas Seva Sansthan by filing the aforesaid connected appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] both dated28.11.2025 dismissing its applications for registration under section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on the grounds inter-alia that:-
ITA No. 46/JPR/2026
“Ground1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT, Exemption grossly erred in rejecting the application in Form 10AB for renewal of the registration under section 80G of 2 the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely based on assumptions, surmises and conjectures and against the principles of natural justice and hence the same may kindly be quashed and the renewal shall be granted.
Ground2. The Ld. CIT Exemption erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the Application No. CIT EXEMPTION, CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR/2025-26/12AA/10884 for granting registration/approval u/s 80G. The rejection so made and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s 80G is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. The same kindly may be quashed and the renewal shall be granted.
Ground3. The Ld. CIT Exemption grossly erred in assuming that Incomplete Form 10AB was filed not considering the fact that 4 the appellant trust filed its application in Form 10AB well within Rs time and provided all the documents as required and accepted in Form 10AB on the Income Tax Portal as on 27th May 2025
Ground4. The Ld. CIT Exemption grossly erred in assuming that the appellant trust is not registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 whereas the facts of the case is that the trust is 5 registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 vide registration no. 24/TRUST/DEV/UDAI/2024. Thus the renewal under section 80G may please be granted and the rejection order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption may please be quashed.
Ground5. That the impugned order so passed was in the 6 contravention of the law prevalent at the relevant point of time and also on fact and hence may kindly be quashed.
Ground6. The appellant trust has already been granted registration/approval u/s 80G based on same facts and circumstances and no facts OR circumstances have been changed since then in the working of the appellant trust and thus rejecting the application for renewal is nothing but merely a change of opinion and hence the impugned order may kindly be quashed.
Ground7. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, 1 amend OR alter of OR any of the grounds of the appeal on OR before the date of hearing.”
ITA No. 47/JPR/2026
“Ground1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT, Exemption grossly erred in rejecting the application in Form 10AB for renewal of the registration under section 12AB 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely based on assumptions, surmises and conjectures and against the principles of natural justice and hence the same may kindly be quashed and the renewal be granted.
Ground2. The Ld. CIT Exemption erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the Application No. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR/2025-26/12AA/10876 for granting registration/approval u/s 12AA. The rejection so made and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s 12AA is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. The same kindly may be quashed and the renewal shall be granted.
Ground3. The Ld. CIT Exemption grossly erred in assuming that Incomplete Form 10AB was filed not considering the fact that 3 the appellant trust filed its application in Form 10AB well within Rs. time and provided all the documents as required and accepted in Form 10AB on the Income Tax Portal as on May 2025
Ground4. The Ld. CIT Exemption grossly erred in assuming that the appellant trust is not registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 whereas the facts of the case is that the trust is 4 registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 vide registration no. 24/TRUST/DEV/UDAI/2024. Thus the renewal under section 12AA may please be granted and the rejection order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption may please be quashed.
Ground5. That the impugned order so passed was in the 5 contravention of the law prevalent at the relevant point of time and also on fact and hence may kindly be quashed.
Ground6. The appellant trust has already been granted registration/approval u/s 12AA based on same facts and circumstances and no facts or circumstances have been changed Rs since then in the working of the appellant trust and thus rejecting the application for renewal is nothing but merely a change of opinion and hence the impugned order may kindly be quashed.
Ground7. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend OR alter of OR any of the grounds of the appeal on OR before the date of hearing.”
2. However despite service none appeared on behalf of the appellant to pursue the present appeal, the Bench has decided to decide the present appeal after pursuing the record with the assistance of the Ld. DR for the Revenue.
3. Briefly stated, facts necessary for adjudication of the issues at hand are: Appellant trust has applied for registration under section 12AB with consequential registration under section 80G of the Act which have been dismissed by Ld. CIT(E) on ground of none appearance of the appellant without deciding the applications on merit.
4. Ld. CIT(E) recorded in the impugned orders that notice by email was issued on 24.10.2025 thereafter on 27.10.2025 and 11.11.2025 but none appeared on behalf of the appellant-trust hence, dismissed the applications by incorporating in the reasons inter-alia that:-
- Incomplete form 10AB.
- Non registration with RPT Act, 1959.
- Non Genuineness of Activities and non compliance.
5. We have heard Ld. Dr for the Revenue and perused the record available. Perusal of the impugned orders passed by Ld. CIT(E) go to prove that in one month four notices were stated to have been issued but it is nowhere recorded in the order if any such notices were ever served upon on the appellant trust. Merely on the basis of the fact that notices were issued, without knowing its compliance, the appellant trust cannot be proceeded against ex-parte and it certainly amounts to denying reasonable opportunity of being heard.
6. In view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by Ld. CIT(E) are hereby set aside to decide afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant trust by disposing of the applications filed by the appellant trust under section 12AB and under section 80G of the Act on merits.
7. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant trust are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10-08-2026
