SHANTIDHAM SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE

ITA 739/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 June 20266 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should decide issues on merits and a reference to a wrong provision in an application is not a basis for dismissal. Procedural irregularities should be treated as technical non-compliance and the applicant should be given an opportunity to correct mistakes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for regular approval under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was rejected by the CIT(E) due to an error in mentioning the provision of law under which the application was filed. The assessee had sought registration under Section 12A(1)(ac).

What were the issues?

Whether a rejection of an application for registration solely based on a technical error in mentioning the provision of law is sustainable. Whether the principle of substantial compliance should be applied to procedural requirements for registration under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Shri Pravan Asthikar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (for short, “CIT(E)”), dated 16/09/2025 whereby application for regular approval under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act has been rejected.

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that the impugned order has been passed by Ld. Prescribed Authority observing that there was error in mentioning the provision of law under which the application was filed seeking registration under Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act.

3.

We are of the considered view that quasi–judicial authorities are supposed to decide the issues on mer

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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

All 679 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →