SUBODH SHIKSHAN SANSTHA ADYAL,BHANDRA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 745/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 June 20267 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should decide issues on merits and that a minor error in mentioning a provision or a slight delay should not lead to outright rejection. The principle of substantial compliance should be applied, and the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify mistakes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for regular approval under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) due to an error in mentioning the provision of law and a delay in filing. The assessee filed an appeal against this rejection.

What were the issues?

Whether rejection of an application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) solely on technical grounds like a wrong provision cited or a minor delay is justified. Whether the principle of substantial compliance should be applied to procedural requirements for such applications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotia, 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 30/09/2025 whereby application for regular approval under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act has been rejected.

2.

At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of one day in filing the appeal and considering the same that the delay is not of substantial period, the delay is condoned.

3.

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 registratio

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 →