UGANTA FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 921/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year:2026-27)

Uganta Foundation Vs. CIT B-62, Uganta, University Exemption Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AAATU 6505 E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT Date of Hearing 20.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.08.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT (Exemption) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(E)”), dated 14.03.2026 for denying of grant of approval sought by the assessee under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 921/JPR/2026 Uganta Foundation 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G(5) solely on the ground of an inadvertent error in selecting the wrong sub-clause/section code without appreciating that the mistake in selecting the section code in Form 10AB was a bona fide, curable procedural error, and not a substantive violation that warrants the outright rejection of the 80G application. The order of the Learned CIT(Exemption) is mechanical and contrary to the principles of law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Exemption) erred in not providing the Appellant with an opportunity to rectify the mistake or to allow amendment of the form, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, especially when the Appellant had complied with all substantive conditions for approval under Section 80G(5) and all required documents as well as financial statements were already on record. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3. A perusal of the order passed by the ld. CIT(E) reveals that the application was rejected, noting that the assessee had mentioned incorrect clause under which registration was being sought by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(E) has noted that the assessee ought to have applied sub-clause (b) of Clause (iv) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Act, however, the assessee had applied for approval under Clause (i) of Section 80G(5) of the Act. The assessee had pleaded before the ld. CIT(E) to consider its application under the right clause and stated that the incorrect clause had been mentioned inadvertently. That a bona fide error appeared in selecting sub-clause (iv) instead of Sub-clause (ii) while filling online the contents of the form for seeking approval. The ld. CIT(E) however, rejected assessee’s request for considering the application in the right sub-section/clause, stating that his office did not have power to change the clause selected by the applicant.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 921/JPR/2026 Uganta Foundation 4. Considering the facts as above, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) and direct him to seek a fresh application from the assessee mentioning the correct clause in which approval has been sought, and thereafter, decide the issue of approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act as per law. As rightly pointed out by the assessee to the Ld. CIT(E), mentioning of incorrect clause is a mere procedural, technical defect which is curable and is not a fatal error. The right course of action for the Ld. CIT(E) was to ask the assessee to cure the defect in the filing of the application before him by filing a fresh application mentioning the correct section quote and not to reject assessee’s application in limine. 5. In view of the above, the ld. CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the application of the assessee seeking approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act after obtaining the application afresh from the assessee, mentioning the correct clause. 6. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Kuldip Singh) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 25.08.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to:

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 921/JPR/2026 Uganta Foundation 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur