Gayatri Pariwar Trust Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Jaipur)
Trust Produces State Registration Proof: Jaipur ITAT Orders Fresh Decision on Section 12AB Application
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has restored a trust’s registration application for fresh consideration after it placed on record that it was registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
In Gayatri Pariwar Trust v. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur, ITA No. 1617/JPR/2026, pronounced on 4 November 2026, the Tribunal set aside the rejection order and directed the Commissioner to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The application had been rejected solely because the trust was not registered under the State legislation. Once the trust brought its registration to the Tribunal’s notice, the Bench considered it appropriate to grant another opportunity before the CIT(E).
Background: Application Rejected for Absence of State Registration
Gayatri Pariwar Trust filed an application in Form 10AB, seeking registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur, rejected the application through an order dated 19 March 2026.
The Tribunal recorded that the sole ground of rejection was non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, referred to in the order as the RPT Act.
The trust challenged that decision before the ITAT. Its grounds also questioned whether sufficient time had been allowed to respond before the application was rejected.
Trust Objected to Friday-Evening Notice
The trust submitted that the hearing notice was issued on Friday, 13 March 2026, at 7:44 p.m., after office hours.
The notice required a response before 11 a.m. on Monday, 16 March 2026.
According to the trust, this provided inadequate time to prepare and furnish its reply. It argued that rejection of the application after such a short response period violated the principles of natural justice.
The trust further contended that the Commissioner had time until 30 March to dispose of the application but nevertheless rejected it on 19 March.
These were the trust’s objections in appeal. The Tribunal’s operative reasoning, however, focused on the State registration brought on record.
Registration Under Rajasthan Public Trust Act Brought on Record
During the appellate proceedings, the trust placed before the Tribunal the fact that it had been registered under the RPT Act, 1959.
This directly addressed the deficiency on which the Commissioner had based the rejection.
The Tribunal noted that the application under the income-tax registration framework had been rejected solely for absence of registration under the State law.
In that situation, the newly presented registration position required consideration by the authority deciding the application.
The order does not specify the date on which State registration was obtained. Its conclusion therefore rests on the fact that registration was brought on record before the Tribunal, without determining whether it had existed at every earlier stage.
Tribunal Granted Another Opportunity
After hearing both sides and examining the record, the ITAT held that the trust should receive one more opportunity to seek registration before the CIT(E).
It considered this necessary to advance the cause of justice.
The Tribunal consequently set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to decide the application afresh in accordance with law, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The immediate effect was restoration of the application for examination, rather than a final grant of registration by the Tribunal.
State Registration Did Not Automatically Decide Tax Registration
An important distinction follows from the relief granted.
The Tribunal accepted that the State registration justified reconsideration because it addressed the sole reason for rejection. It did not hold that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act automatically established entitlement under Section 12AB.
The CIT(E) must now examine the restored application and reach a fresh decision under the applicable income-tax provisions.
The trust therefore obtained an opportunity to have its claim reconsidered with the registration position before the authority. The order does not substitute the Tribunal’s approval for that examination.
Hearing Must Permit Effective Presentation of the Case
Although the Tribunal did not separately adjudicate every objection concerning the notice timetable, its remand expressly requires an adequate opportunity of being heard.
This permits the trust to present the State registration material and explain its relevance to the pending application.
The order does not prescribe a universal minimum response period or declare every Friday-to-Monday notice invalid. Its direction is specific to ensuring a proper hearing in the restored proceedings.
The trust’s complaint about the short notice period must therefore be distinguished from the narrower basis on which the Tribunal granted relief.
Significance of the Decision
The ruling highlights the importance of reconsidering a registration application when material placed before the appellate forum directly addresses the sole deficiency relied upon for rejection.
Here, the trust’s State registration warranted a fresh examination by the CIT(E). The rejection order was set aside, but entitlement to income-tax registration remains open for determination.
The outcome is therefore a remand for fresh adjudication, supported by a direction to provide a meaningful hearing, rather than an unconditional approval of the trust’s application.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The Appellants, Gayatri Pariwar Trust by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] on the grounds inter-alia that:-
“1. That Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur did not give adequate time for hearing. Notice for hearing was issued on 13/03/2026 (Friday) after office hours i.e. at 7:44 PM and asked to submit reply before 11AM on 16/03/2026 (Monday). The rejection of the 12A application by giving insufficient time to assessee is against the principles of natural justice.
2. That the CIT(E) had time upto 30th March to dispose the application for renewal, but the respondent instead of giving adequate time to assessee, preferred to reject the application on 19th March, 2026 itself.
3. Appellant begs the liberty to raise/withdraw any ground of appeal before the Hon’ble Bench.”
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)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on the sole ground of non registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (in short RPT Act, 1959).
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E), appellant trust has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file.
5. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) goes to prove that the appellant’s application seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act was rejected on the sole ground of non registration under RPT Act, 1959. Now the appellant has brought on record the fact that the appellant trust has been registered under RPT Act, 1959. In these circumstances, the appellant is required to get one more opportunity to seek registration from the Ld. CIT(E), to substantiate the cause of justice. Hence impugned order is set aside to decide afresh in accordance with law by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
6. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04/11/2026 .
