VIR SAVARKAR SHISHAN & SEVA SANSHTHA,AT -KARJAN, VADODARA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) ,AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD,GUJARAT.

These are two appeals filed by the same Assessee against two separate Orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] denying registration under Section 12A/12AB and the approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].

We would first take up ITA No.369/AHD/2026 preferred by the Assessee challenging Order, dated 16/01/2026, passed by Learned CIT(E) whereby the application filed by the Assessee in Form No.10AB under Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act was rejected. The Assessee has raised 2

When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee prayed for setting-aside of the impugned order and contended that the application filed by the Assessee was dismissed on account of technical defect without examining the merits. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted the aforesaid application was rejected on the ground that the same filed under wrong provision [i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)] applicable to charitable organization already holding regular registration and seeking renewal of the same. The grievance of the Assessee is that the Assessee was not put to notice about the defect in the application and the order rejecting application was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

Per Contra, Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Learned CIT(E) contending that the application was filed by the Assessee under incorrect provision and therefore, there was no infirmity in the rejection order passed by the Learned CIT(E).

We have considered the rival submission, perused the material on record and examined the position in law.

It is the case of the Assessee that the application was intended to be made under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. However, inadvertently, the application was filed under incorrect provision [Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)] by selection incorrect option while filling the relevant form electronically. Since the Assessee was not confronted with defect in the application, the Assessee was not able to explain before the Learned CIT(E) that the aforesaid inadvertent mistake had occurred while filing the application in the prescribed form. We note that no notice of hearing was issued to the Assessee. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice to grant another opportunity to the Assessee to make out a case for renewal of registration in terms of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(E) and restore the application filed by the Assessee to its original number. The Learned CIT(E) is directed to either treat the application filed by the Assessee as application filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act or grant opportunity to the Assessee to file rectified application. It is clarified that the Learned CIT(E) would be at liberty to decide upon the merits of the application as per law after granting the Assessee an opportunity to make submission and file documents/details in support of the said application. All rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open. In terms of the aforesaid, all the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In terms of paragraph above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

We would next take up ITA No.370/AHD/2026 preferred by the Assessee challenging the Order, dated 27/01/2026, passed by Learned CIT(E) whereby the application filed by the Assessee seeking approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act was rejected.

We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. It is apparent that the application filed by the Assessee for seeking approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act was dismissed by the Learned CIT(E) as the application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act was rejected by the Learned CIT(E). We have, hereinabove, set aside the aforesaid order passed by the Learned CIT(E) and have restored the application back to the file of the Learned CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. Therefore, the basis on which the application filed by the Assessee for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act was passed does not survive.

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(E) and restore the application filed by the Assessee seeking approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act back to the file of the Learned CIT(E) with the directions to adjudicate the said application afresh (a) after taking into consideration the adjudication of application filed by the Assessee for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act as well as the relevant documents/details/submission filed by the Assessee in support of application seeking registration under Section 80G(5) of the Act. It is clarified that the Assessee would be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In terms of above, all the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes without returning any finding on merits.

In result, the present appeal (ITA No.370/AHD/2026) preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, both the appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

""यथ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.