SREE HANUMAN VYAYAM SHALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 197/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sree Hanuman Vyayam Vs. Income Tax Officer Shala, Hyderabad Exemption Ward 1(4) PAN:AADTS7108Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, CIT (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Sree Hanuman Vyayam Shala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Hyderabad, (“Ld. CIT(E)”) dated 14.01.2026 for the A.Y. 2025-26. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

technical error while selecting the relevant code in the online form. The Ld. AR contended that the error was purely procedural in nature and was neither deliberate nor intentional. He further submitted that the assessee-trust is carrying on genuine charitable activities and had already been granted registration under section 12AB of the Act as well as provisional approval under section 80G of the Act. Therefore, denial of final approval merely on account of an inadvertent selection of an incorrect code in the electronic form would result in grave injustice. It was argued that procedural requirements are intended to facilitate justice and should not be construed in a manner that defeats substantive rights. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to permit the assessee to file a fresh application under the correct section code and adjudicate the claim on merits. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that the application was rightly rejected as the assessee had selected an incorrect section code while filing Form No.10AB. According to the Ld. DR, the application has to be examined on the basis of the particulars furnished by the assessee and, therefore, no interference with the impugned order was called for. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. We find that the rejection of the assessee’s application is solely on account of an incorrect selection of the relevant clause while filing Form No.10AB electronically. We further find that

there is no finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) doubting either the genuineness of the activities of the assessee-trust or the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under section 80G of the Act. The rejection is thus based entirely on a technical defect in the application. In our considered opinion, procedural requirements are handmaids of justice and are intended to advance the cause of justice rather than defeat it. It is a settled principle of law that substantive rights should not be denied merely on account of technical or procedural lapses, particularly where such lapses are curable in nature and do not affect the merits of the claim. When an assessee demonstrates that an error has occurred inadvertently while filing an electronic application and seeks an opportunity to rectify the same, the authorities are expected to adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach. We have also taken note of the fact that the assessee is already registered under section 12AB of the Act and had earlier been granted provisional approval under section 80G of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee deserves to be examined on merits rather than being rejected solely on account of an inadvertent selection of an incorrect code in the online application. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to file the application in Form No.10AB under the correct section code applicable to its case and thereafter examine and adjudicate the claim for approval under section 80G of the Act on merits in accordance with law. Needless to mention, the assessee shall

extend full cooperation and furnish all information and documents as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) shall decide the issue afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 1-th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 10th June, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 SREE HANUMAN VYAYAM SHALA 4-3-50/1 ,SULTAN BAZAR 500095 ,Telangana 2 Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(4) Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT – Exemption, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.06.11 RAO 11:18:00 +05'30'