DNYANAGANGA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, MALWADI ,MALWADI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. Error in Overlooking Existing Records: The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on the grounds of submitting a provisional registration, failing to appreciate that the regular registration certificate under Section 12AB was already uploaded and available in the records of the original application dated 15-Apr-2025. 2. Inadvertent Administrative Error: The learned CIT(E) erred in not allowing the appellant to rectify a bona fide administrative error where a provisional certificate was inadvertently submitted in a subsequent response instead of the regular one, despite the appellant holding a valid regular 12AB registration. 3. Failure to Consider Reasonable Cause for Delay: The learned CIT(E) erred in not condoning the delay in responding to notices dated 11/07/2025, 04/09/2025, and 16/10/2025, despite the appellant's explanation that the delay was due to the Tax Audit season, which constitutes a "reasonable cause" for non-compliance. 4. Technical vs. Substantial Justice: The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting a substantive claim for registration under Section 80G(5) on purely technical grounds of non-submission/procedural lapses, rather than

The brief facts are that on receipt of the assessee’s application filed in Form No. 10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act along with annexures thereto, with a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and fulfillment of the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) issued notice on 11.07.2025 through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification contained therein by 28.07.2025. On verification of the details/documents filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) noticed certain discrepancies which were communicated vide issue of another notice dated 04.09.2025 seeking compliance by 11.09.2025. The said discrepancies are reproduced below : "(i) Without prejudice to the above, it is to inform that 'Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A' is related to application for renewal of regular registration for a trust / institution which is having regular registration under section 12AB of the Act and 'Sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A' is related to application for regular approval under section 12AB of the Act for the trust / institution which is having provisional registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The copy of order furnished by you is actually an order of provisional approval under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is possible that you might have obtained provisional registration under section 12AB and while applying for regular registration 'Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A' might have got erroneously selected in the present application instead of selecting 'Sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of subsection (1) of section 12A'. Please furnish your clarification along with supporting documents.”

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relates thereto.

The Ld. AR at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application for registration u/s 80G of the Act on the ground that the assessee has used wrong section code in filing the same. He submitted that this mistake has happened inadvertently by the assessee. The assessee also has regular registration u/s 12A of the Act but the assessee inadvertently submitted provisional registration copy inadvertently before the Ld. CIT(E). He, therefore, humbly requested that, in the interest of justice, the matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to consider the assessee’s application afresh under the correct statutory provisions after permitting rectification and filing the supporting documents.

The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E).

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application on the ground that the assessee is not having regular registration u/s 12A of the Act and the application has been filed under the wrong section code. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the application for regular approval u/s 80G was inadvertently filed under the wrong clause i.e. under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act instead of clause (iii) which is the correct clause. As the assessee inadvertently filed a copy of provisional registration u/s 12A instead of regular registration certificate, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for approval u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. AR has therefore humbly requested that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de-novo adjudication of the assessee’s application for approval u/s 80G of the Act considering the same under the correct statutory provision after permitting rectification and filing of supporting documents by the assessee.

Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice, to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter back to his file to decide it afresh on merits as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide full support to the Ld. CIT(E) in terms of filing the requisite details/documents/evidence as may be required/called upon by the Ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without taking any adjournment under any pretext whatsoever unless required for a sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th May, 2026.