SHRI NILKANTHESHWAR DHARMADAY AND SHAIKSHANIK TRUST ,PUNE vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE , PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 798/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 July 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application due to filing under the wrong section/code was hyper-technical. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable institution, applied for regular registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) after obtaining provisional registration. The CIT(E) rejected the application and cancelled the provisional registration because the assessee had commenced activities in 1988 but had applied for provisional registration under a section applicable to institutions whose activities had not commenced.

What were the issues?

Whether rejecting an application for registration solely on the technical ground of filing under the wrong section/code, when the assessee had inadvertently made a mistake, is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora
For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Nilkantheshwar Dharmaday Exemption Circle, and Shaikshanik Trust, Pune At post Donje, vs. Taluka Haveli, Pune-411025. PAN : AABTN7681F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Department by : Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 27-07-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 29-07-2026 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06-12-2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“CIT(E)”], whereby he rejected the application of the assessee filed before him on 24-05-2025 in Form No. 10AB u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”).

2.

Although several grounds have been raised by the assessee, all these relate to the rejection of the application for registration u/s. 12A of the Act filed on 27-02-2024 and cancellation of provisional registration granted to the assessee earlier on 27-02-2024 u/s. 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) of the Act

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable institution having existence since 12-04-1988. The assessee sought registration u/s. 12A of the Act under the new scheme and was also granted provisional registration on 27-02-2024. On receipt of

application filed in Form-10AB for regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act on 24-05-2025 along with Annexure thereto, the Ld.CIT(E) with a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the assessee-trust, issued a notice through ITBA portal on 17-07-2025, requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification contained therein by 30-07-2025. On verification of details and documents submitted by the assessee in response to the said notice, certain discrepancies were noticed by the Ld.CIT(E), which were communicated to the assessee vide notice dt. 15-09-2025, seeking compliance by 23-09-2025. The said discrepancy noticed by the Ld.CIT(E) in para 4 of his impugned order, is reproduced below:

“i) Without prejudice to the above, it is seen that the trust/ institution has obtained provisional approval on 27/02/2024 under sub-clause (A) of clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Said provision of the Act is applicable to a case, where activities of the institution or fund have not commenced. However, as noticed from the submission made, the activities in your case were commenced on 12/04/1988. Therefore, said provisions of sec. 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) of the Act are not applicable to your case. Please clarify with supporting documents."

4.

The assessee sought additional time for compliance to the said notice which was granted till 16-10-2025. The assessee thereafter furnished its response on 09-10-2025. However, not being satisfied with the assessee’s response, the Ld.CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier by observing as under: “6. The assessee furnished its response on 09/10/2025. On the issue of obtaining provisional registration under clause 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) the assessee has stated that the date of commencement of activities of the trust is 12/04/1988. It has obtained provisional registration in form 10AC on 27/02/2024 u/s 12A(1)(ac) (vi) - Item 'A' of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As the activities of the trust were already commenced it was required to file application in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac) (vi) - Item 'B' of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Said provision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "12A(1)(ac) notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) to (ab), the person in receipt of the income has made an application in the prescribed

form and manner to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, for registration of the trust or institution,- (vi) in any other case, where activities of the trust or institution have (A) not commenced, at least one month prior to the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year from which the said registration is sought; (B) commenced and no income or part thereof of the said trust or institution has been excluded from the total income on account of applicability of sub-clause (iv) or subclause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub- clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, or section 11 or section 12, for any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any time after the commencement of such activities." 6.1 As per the registration certificate issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under the BPT Act 1950, the date of commenced was 12/04/1988 i.e. long before obtaining the provisional registration in form 10AC on 27/02/2024.. Therefore, said provisions of sec. 12A(1) (ac) (vi)(A) of the Act are not applicable to the assessee's case. 7. As stated by the assessee, its activities were commenced on 12/04/1988 i.e. before obtaining the provisional registration in form 10AC on 27/02/2024. Therefore, it was required to file application u/s u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) - Item 'B' of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected and the provisional registration granted on 27/02/2024 under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.”

5.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee due to filing of the same under wrong section/code by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee filed the application under wrong section/code mistakenly and the rejection of the assessee’s application for regular registration by the Ld.CIT(E) for this reason is hyper technical in nature. The Ld.AR cited the decision of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Help for Children In Need Foundation vs. CIT in ITA No. 1774/PUN/2024, dt. 09-12-2024 and submitted that in a similar factual scenario, where the application was rejected for the reason for selection of wrong section/code, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to his file with a direction to treat the application as filed under the correct section/code and decide the same on merits. The Ld.AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Indore Bench

of the Tribunal in the case of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Foundation vs. CIT(Exemption) in ITA Nos. 147 & 148/Ind/2025, dt. 27-02-2026. He, therefore, prayed that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication by treating the application of the assessee as filed under correct/desired section, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld.CIT(E).

8.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record as well as the Paper Book filed by the Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee and judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld.AR. We find that the Ld.CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application for registration on account of wrong mentioning of the section/code and no other adverse findings have been given by him on merits of the case. Admittedly, the assessee filed the application under the wrong section/code inadvertently. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Help for Children In Need Foundation vs. CIT (supra), wherein under identical set of facts, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that due to a typographical and inadvertent error occurred in the application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act and when pointed out by Ld.CIT, Exemption, Pune, the assessee accepted the mistake and requested to treat the application as filed under code 14 clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act. But Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune refused to accept the request and consequently rejected the application merely on the basis of technical ground by observing as under :- “8. In view of the above, the assessee has accepted the mistake that the inadvertently selected the wrong Code in the time of filing form. Therefore, the application filed by the assessee is treated as non-maintainable. 9. Accordingly, the application u/s sub clause (B) of (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the assessee is hereby rejected for statistical

purposes and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 8. From a perusal of above order, we find that the application filed by the assessee was rejected on account of a typographical error of wrong mentioning of particular code and no other adverse findings has been given on merit by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Ld. Counsel relied on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Nitdaa Foundation (supra) wherein under identical situation the appeal of the assessee was allowed by observing as under :- “12. Thus, the whole controversy arose due to incorrect mention of the clause under which the application was required to be filed, which was mentioned as clause (iv) of the first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G in column 6 of Form No. 10AC whereas the same should have been mentioned as clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G and the Ld. AR also admitted this fact in the course of the hearing. Since, Form No. 10AC was filed in time, the error on the part of the assessee for mentioning the wrong clause is deemed to be a curable defect and the application on Form No. 10AC is deemed to be filed under clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G. The order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) is hereby set aside and he is required to consider the application as filed under clause (i) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act and consider the same for grant of approval under section 80G(5) to the trust in accordance with law within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall file all necessary evidence before him.” 9. Respectfully following the above decision and in the light of the circular no 7/2024 issued by CBDT on 25-04-2024, i.e. after the filing of application by the assessee wherein the issue of mentioning wrong section code has been addressed / considered as a common & frequent error and also observing the fact that in the instant case Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not given any adverse finding on merits of the case, against the assessee, we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with the direction to treat the application of the assessee as filed under code 14 clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G (or under the desired section code) and consider the same for grant of approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce requisite information/documents in support of registration u/s 80G of the IT Act, otherwise Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal are partly allowed.” 8.1. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in light of the judicial precedents cited above, we deem it proper in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to decide the assessee’s application afresh by treating the same as filed under the correct or desired section/code as per fact and law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to modify or correct the application if needed and file

fresh Form-10AB under appropriate section/code. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29-07-2026 (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Tadepalli Naga Digitally signed by Tadepalli पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 29-07-2026 Naga Murali Mohan Murali Mohan Date: 2026.07.30 11:44:27 TNMM +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →