LIONS CLUB OF PUNE PHOENIX FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

There is a delay of 24 days in filing of the appeal in ITA No.1376/PUN/2026 and the delay of 25 days in ITA No.1377/PUN/2026 before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the

In ITA No.1376/PUN/2026 the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(Exemption) in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act while ITA No.1377/PUN/2026 relates to the order of the CIT(Exemption) in denying the grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB on 12.05.2025 for registration of the trust under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust / institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued through ITBA portal on 25.07.2025 requesting the assessee to upload certain information / clarification. Since the assessee did not comply, another notice was issued on 30.09.2025 requesting to submit compliance by 10.10.2025 and the assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date the application shall be liable to be rejected and the registration / approval shall also be liable to be cancelled. Since there was no compliance by the assessee, another notice was issued on 24.10.2025 requesting to make compliance by 31.10.2025. However, in absence of any response from the side of the assessee trust, the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application filed by the

Since he rejected the grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act and cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act.

Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application under Section 12A solely on limitation grounds, disregarding the merits of the case. 2. The Learned CIT(E) failed to provide adequate opportunity for the appellant to present evidence demonstrating the genuineness of charitable activities and compliance with Section 12A provisions violating the principles of natural justice. 3. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in completing the assessment without properly considering the submission made by the Appellant Trust on 17.10.2025 in response to second notice, as there is no reference of the same in order. 4. The Learned CIT(E) disregarded the welfare-oriented intent of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the purpose of Section 12A, which is to promote charitable activities benefiting society. 5. The Learned CIT(E) issued notice on 24-10-2025 requesting the appellant to file explanation to the discrepancies pointed out in the above notice, on or before 31-10-2025. Undisputedly, the time given to the appellant for compliance is less than a week, which is against the Standard Operative Procedure ('SOP') issued by the CBDT dated 19.11.2020, wherein, minimum period of 15 days is required to be given to the assessee to comply with notices from the date of issue of the notice. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dauphin Travel Marketing Private Limited vs. ITO in W.P.(C) 8870/2023 & CM Nos.33516-17/2023 dated 05.07.2023 taking note of this SOP held that the grant of insufficient time to respond the notice violates the principles of natural justice and, therefore, set-aside the assessment. Thus, it is clear that the appellant was given unreasonably very short period of time to respond to the notice, which is against the principles of natural justice. 6. The above grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be amended, altered, modified etc in the interest of natural justice.

Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No.1377/PUN/2026 which read as under: 1. The Learned CIT(E), Pune has erred in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act., 1961, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Learned CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of delay in filing Form No. 10AB, without considering that the delay was due to genuine, bona fide and unavoidable reasons beyond the control of the appellant trust. 3. The Learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the appellant trust is engaged in genuine charitable activities, and the rejection of approval on mere technical grounds defeats the very object and purpose of Section 80G, which is to promote charitable institutions. 4. The Learned CIT(E) failed to consider that the appellant had duly explained the reasons for delay, including administrative constraints, changes in compliance personnel, and technical issues on the portal, which constitute reasonable cause for delay. 5. The Learned CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant trust had duly complied with all notices issued from time to time and had furnished relevant details, explanations, and supporting documents as and when called for. The submissions made by the appellant have not been properly considered or dealt with in the impugned order, rendering the order arbitrary and unjustified. 6. The Learned CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that procedural lapses should not override substantive compliance, especially in the case of charitable institutions working for public welfare. 7. The above grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be amended, altered. modified etc in the interest of natural justice.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(Exemption) on account of mistake on the part of employee of the trustee by not informing about the notices received. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an

The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(Exemption) for which he rejected the application filed by the assessee for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier u/s 12AB. Since the application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act was rejected and the provisional registration granted earlier was cancelled, he rejected the application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to the mistake on the part of the employee of the trust by not informing about the notices, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). It is also his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(E) to his satisfaction. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details to his satisfaction and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.