B S RAI EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Years: 2025-26 & Assessment Years: 2025-26
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 21.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (in short Ld.
Commissioner) u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2025-26. 2. Both the appeals are interconnected and having involved almost identical issues and therefore for the sake of brevity the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this ITA No.3516/M/2025
M/s. BS Rai Education Trust
2
composite order by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and issue involved in ITA No.3497/M/2025 as a lead case and result of the same would be applicable mutatis mutandis to both the appeals under consideration.
Coming to ITA No.3497/M/2025, it is observed from the impugned order that though the Ld. Commissioner on realizing has observed that the Assessee is having provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act valid from A.Y. 2023-24 to A.Y. 2025-26 and therefore provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act are applicable to the Assessee, however, on perusal of form 10AB filed by the Assessee, the Ld. Commissioner by observing “ that the application has applied u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) which is valid only for trust already having regular registration for 5 years and seeking renewal of regular registration which is due to expire. The applicant having provisional registration for three years does not qualify to make the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act”, ultimately rejected the application filed by the Assessee.
We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We observe that despite of having knowledge about the correct provisions to be applied, the Ld. Commissioner still rejected the application filed by the Assessee simply on the technical mistake and/or inadvertent mistake in mentioning the sub clause as (ii) instead of (iii) of the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by taking into consideration the application already filed “as valid” in the eyes of law and/or by treating the same as filed under sub clause (iii) of the provision of ITA No.3516/M/2025 M/s. BS Rai Education Trust
3
section 12(1)(ac) of the Act. Suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms.
In view of our decision in ITA No.3497//M/2025, ITA No.3516/M/2025 is also allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to consider the application filed by the Assessee as valid in the eyes of law and decide the same afresh.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2025. (OM PRAKASH KANT) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.