PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. AO, CPC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई पीठें, म ुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: C BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 7128/MUM/2026 निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2024-25) PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), A-2405/06, ASHOK TOWER, ADDL./JCIT(A)-3, DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR BENGALURU ROAD, PAREL, MUMBAI- Vs. 400012, MAHARASHTRA BENGALURU BENGALURU-560085, KARNATAKA अपीलधर्थी /Appellant प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent

Permanent Account Number of AAKCP7504M Assessee:

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Rogesh Thar, AR (virtually appeared) प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Soneji, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 03-Sep-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 07-09-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 06/03/2026 passed by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2024-25 on the following revised grounds of appeal:-

ITA 7128/MUM/2026 PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION “1. GROUND NO.1: VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE: 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order without granting the personal hearing through video conferencing as specifically and duly requested by the Appellant. 1.2. The Appellant prays that the impugned order; being in violation of the principles of natural justice and without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, be held as bad in law and quashed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, 2. GROUND NO. 2: DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT: 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in prematurely dismissing the appeal as infructuous without adjudicating the issue of denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 2.2. The Appellant prays that the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act be granted and the impugned order to be set aside and quashed. 2.3. Alternatively, the Appellant prays that the matter be restored to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue after the order of CIT(E) is passed pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated August 04, 2025. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 3. GROUND NO 3: DENIAL OF REDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FROM GROSS RECEIPT OF THE CURRENT YEAR: 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to computation of income, including reducing the expenditure incurred by it against the gross receipt of the current year. 3.2. Assuming without admitting that the Appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s. 11, the expenditure incurred by the Appellant ought to be reduced while computing the income of the Appellant, even otherwise, on a commercial principle. 3.3. The Appellant prays that ld. AO be directed to reduce the expenditure incurred during the year while computing the income. GENERAL:

ITA 7128/MUM/2026 PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, withdraw or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- The assessee is a charitable institution which was originally registered u/s 12AA and was also enjoying approval u/s 80G of the Act. Consequent to the amended regime governing registration of charitable institutions, the assessee was required to obtain registration u/s 12AB of the Act. It is the case of the assessee that, while seeking re-registration, it inadvertently filed Form No. 10AB on 28/06/2024 instead of Form No.10A. The application was thus rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 23/12/2024. Aggrieved by the rejection, the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 3.1. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 1227/Mum/2025, vide order dated 04/08/2025, set aside the rejection order and restored the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(E), directing that the assessee be permitted to file fresh application in Form No.10A along with the requisite details and that the Ld.CIT(E) thereafter examine the registration afresh in accordance with law. The Ld.CIT(E), subsequently vide order dated 17/04/2026, granted registration under section 10(23C) of the Act. 3.2. In the meantime, CPC, Bengaluru passed the impugned intimation u/s.143(1) dated 23/12/2025, denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.11 and computing its income at Rs.2,10,87,780/-.

ITA 7128/MUM/2026 PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal against the said intimation before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised alternative contention that, even assuming that exemption u/s 11 was not available, the entire gross receipts could not be brought to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred for earning/applying such receipts. 3.4. The Ld.CIT(A), while passing the impugned order observed that, since the question of registration u/s 12AB had already been restored by this Tribunal to the Ld.CIT(E), the First Appellate Authority did not have jurisdiction over the matter and, accordingly, treated the appeal concerning denial of exemption u/s.11 as infructuous. The appeal was consequently dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as infructuous. It was submitted that the proceedings relating to grant of registration u/s.12AB and the appeal arising from the intimation u/s.143(1) operate in distinct fields. According to the Ld.AR, pending the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(E) could at best have a bearing on the ultimate allowability of exemption u/s 11, but could not result in extinguishment of the statutory appeal arising from the intimation passed u/s.143(1). 4.1. The Ld.AR further submitted that a specific request for personal hearing through video conferencing was made before the

ITA 7128/MUM/2026 PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION Ld.CIT(A), which was declined. It was accordingly submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside. 4.2. The Ld. DR submitted that as the exemption has been granted to the assessee, it is incumbent to verify the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11 of the Act. He thus submitted that the issue may me remitted for necessary verification. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us. 5. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether the appeal arising from the intimation passed u/s.143(1), whereby exemption u/s.11 was denied, could have been dismissed as infructuous merely because the issue of registration u/s.12AB was pending consideration before the Ld.CIT(E) pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal. 5.1. It is undisputed that the earlier appeal before this Tribunal concerned rejection of the assessee's application for registration u/s 12AB. Vide order dated 04/08/2025, the Coordinate Bench restored the registration proceedings to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh consideration after permitting the assessee to file the proper Form No.10A. 5.2. The present proceedings, on the other hand, arise out of the intimation passed u/s.143(1) for A.Y. 2024-25 whereby the assessee's claim of exemption u/s11 was denied and consequential.

ITA 7128/MUM/2026 PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION 5.3. In our considered opinion, merely because the question of registration was pending adjudication before the Ld.CIT(E), the statutory appeal against the intimation u/s.143(1) did not become infructuous. The eventual decision of the Ld.CIT(E) would undoubtedly have a material bearing on assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11. However, the pendency of such proceedings could not, by itself, result in dismissal of the appeal arising out of the intimation. 5.3. The jurisdiction vested in the Ld.CIT(E) to consider grant of registration u/s 12AB and the jurisdiction exercised by the Ld.CIT(A) in an appeal arising out of an intimation u/s 143(1) are separate statutory jurisdictions. The Ld.CIT(A) was, therefore, required to adjudicate the appeal before him having regard to the legal and factual position relevant to the assessment year under consideration. This in any way cannot justify sustaining the adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1), nor could it furnish a valid basis for treating the assessee's statutory appeal as infructuous.

5.4. At the same time we do not intend to delete the addition made under section 143(1) of the Act, it would otherwise mean that the assessee is, entitled to its claim of exemption under section 11. The entitlement to exemption under section 11 is necessarily dependent upon fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed under Chapter III of the Act, including the requirement relating to registration under section 12AB. Since, at the relevant point of time, the registration proceedings had been restored by this Tribunal to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) and were yet to attain finality,

ITA 7128/MUM/2026 PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION the issue relating to the consequential allowability of exemption could not have been finally adjudicated without taking into account the outcome of those proceedings.

5.5. The appropriate course, in the facts of the present case, is therefore to set aside the impugned disallowance and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.AO for fresh consideration. The Ld.AO shall examine the assessee's claim of exemption under section 11 afresh after taking into consideration the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E) in the proceedings pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 04/08/2025, as well as the other conditions relevant to the claim for the year under consideration.

5.6. Needless to observe, the Ld.AO shall not proceed on the premise that the claim of exemption is liable to be rejected merely because registration proceedings were pending at the time of processing the return under section 143(1). The claim shall be examined in accordance with law, on the basis of the registration status ultimately obtaining and the statutory conditions applicable to A.Y. 2024-25. The assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard before the claim is finally determined.

5.7. In view of the above, the disallowance of exemption under section 11 made while processing the return under section 143(1) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions contained herein.

ITA 7128/MUM/2026 PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION Accordingly, the revised grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07-09-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 07-09-2026 Shamik Sr.P.S.

ITA 7128/MUM/2026 PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION Copy to: PUSHTISEVA FOUNDATION, A-2405/06, ASHOK TOWER, DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR ROAD, 1 PAREL, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA

AO, 2 BENGALURU, BENGALURU-560085, KARNATAKA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI