NYKS FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) PUNE , PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 2553/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: NA) 2. ITA No. 2554/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: NA) NYKS Foundation CIT (Exemption) Pune 209, Vardhman 322, ITO PMT Building, Vs. Industrial Estate, L B Shankar Seth Road, S Marg, Gokul Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra. Thane, Maharashtra 411 037 PAN/GIR No. AAAAN6936F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Yogesh Kamat, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 25.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee arise out of two separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(E)"], both dated 10.09.2025 in Form No. 10AD. One order relates to rejection of application for registration under section

2 ITA No. 2553 & 2554 /Mum/2026 NYKS Foundation 12A(1)(ac)(iii) read with section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] and cancellation of provisional registration granted on 04.10.2022. The other order relates to rejection of application for approval under section 80G(5) and cancellation of provisional approval granted on 04.10.2022. Since common facts and issues are involved, both appeals are disposed of by this common order. Condonation of delay 2. There was delay in filing both the appeals. The assessee filed applications supported by affidavits of Shri Manoj Nayak, Trustee of the assessee trust, explaining that the impugned orders were uploaded on the e-filing portal and were not physically served, and therefore the assessee remained unaware of the same. It was also explained that the trust and its Chartered Accountant were preoccupied with return filing and audit compliances. The learned Departmental Representative did not object to condonation of delay. Considering the explanation and there being no objection from the Revenue, the delay in filing both appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 2553/Mum/2026 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred in passing the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 in Form 10AD - rejecting the approval sought by the appellant for final registration under section

3 ITA No. 2553 & 2554 /Mum/2026 NYKS Foundation 12A of the Act – without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred in passing the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 in Form 10AD - rejecting the approval sought by the appellant for final registration under section 12A of the Act - in utter disregards to the factual matrix of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 2554/Mum/2026 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred in passing the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 in Form 10AD - rejecting the approval sought by the appellant for final registration under section 80G of the Act – without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred in passing the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 in Form 10AD - rejecting the approval sought by the appellant for final registration under section 80G of the Act - in utter disregards to the factual matrix of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 4. The assessee is a charitable trust. It had been granted provisional registration under section 12AB and provisional approval under section 80G(5) on 04.10.2022. The assessee filed Form No. 10AB on 29.03.2025 for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G(5).

4 ITA No. 2553 & 2554 /Mum/2026 NYKS Foundation impugned orders, the learned CIT(E) held that the assessee had not furnished requisite details, activity note, supporting evidence, donor-wise details and explanation regarding delay in filing Form No. 10AB. He further held that the applications were filed beyond the prescribed time. Accordingly, the application under section 12A was rejected and provisional registration cancelled. Consequently, the application under section 80G was also rejected and provisional approval cancelled. 6. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee had duly filed replies and uploaded documents in response to the notices issued by the learned CIT(E). He placed reliance on the e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgements showing upload of submission letters, provisional certificates, old registration certificates, PAN, undertaking, affidavit, NOC, trustee identity proof, financial statements, returns, computation and applications. It was submitted that these documents were not considered by the learned CIT(E). 7. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the learned CIT(E). However, he fairly submitted that he had no objection if the matters were restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(E) and carefully examined the material placed before us.

5 ITA No. 2553 & 2554 /Mum/2026 NYKS Foundation 9. The learned CIT(E) proceeded to reject both the applications by observing that the assessee had failed to furnish the requisite information and supporting documents, that the genuineness of its activities could not be verified, and that the applications had also been filed beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the provisional registration under section 12AB as well as the provisional approval under section 80G(5) were cancelled. 10. Before us, the learned AR has produced copies of the e- Proceedings Response Acknowledgements generated from the Income-tax portal. These acknowledgements prima facie demonstrate that the assessee had electronically furnished replies to the notices issued by the learned CIT(E) along with various supporting documents. The documents stated to have been uploaded include the written submissions, provisional registration and approval certificates, earlier registration certificates, PAN, undertaking, affidavit, No Objection Certificate, identity proof of the trustee, audited financial statements, Income-tax Returns, computation of income and other supporting documents. These acknowledgements also indicate that the replies were successfully uploaded on the e-filing portal. 11. On a perusal of the impugned orders, we find that there is no discussion whatsoever regarding the replies and documents which, according to the assessee, had been filed electronically before the learned CIT(E). The impugned orders proceed on the premise that the assessee had either not furnished the requisite details or had failed to explain the discrepancies pointed out in

6 ITA No. 2553 & 2554 /Mum/2026 NYKS Foundation the notices. If the replies and supporting documents had indeed been uploaded before the learned CIT(E), as evidenced by the acknowledgements now placed before us, the same ought to have been examined and dealt with while adjudicating the applications. Equally, if for any reason the replies were not available or could not be accessed by the learned CIT(E), the interests of justice required that an effective opportunity be afforded to the assessee before drawing an adverse inference. 12. The issue before us is not whether the assessee is entitled to registration under section 12AB or approval under section 80G(5) on merits. The primary grievance of the assessee is that the documentary evidences already furnished before the learned CIT(E) have not been considered while passing the impugned orders. Since the material now placed before us requires factual verification at the level of the prescribed authority, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the observations recorded by the learned CIT(E), including those relating to the genuineness of activities, compliance with the statutory conditions or the question of limitation in filing Form No.10AB. 13. We also take note of the fair submission made by the learned Departmental Representative that he has no objection if both the matters are restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering the material placed by the assessee. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice

7 ITA No. 2553 & 2554 /Mum/2026 NYKS Foundation would be adequately met if the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are restored to the file of the learned CIT(E). 14. Accordingly, we set aside both the impugned orders dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned CIT(E) one rejecting the application under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and cancelling the provisional registration under section 12AB, and the other rejecting the application under section 80G(5) and cancelling the provisional approval granted thereunder. The matters are restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to verify the replies and documentary evidences stated to have been furnished by the assessee through the e-Proceedings portal, afford reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and thereafter pass fresh speaking orders in accordance with law after duly considering all the material available on record. Needless to observe, the assessee shall extend full cooperation and furnish such further information or documents as may be called for during the fresh proceedings. 15. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 03/07/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS

8 ITA No. 2553 & 2554 /Mum/2026 NYKS Foundation आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai