LORD AYYAPPA EDUCATION SANSTHA,NERAL vs. CIT (E), PUNE

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are against the separate orders dated 11.02.2026 framed by ld.CIT(Exemption), Pune rejecting the applications for grant of regular registration u/s.12A(1(ac)(iii) and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act). For the sake of convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

“6. The assessee submitted its reply on 15.12.2025. The present application is filed by the assessee under clause (iii) of section 12A(1) (ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions of clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) are related to application for regular registration of a trust or institution which is having provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act. 7. The assessee was specifically requested vide the initial notice to furnish the copy of order of provisional registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such copy is actually required to be furnished along with the application itself under the provisions of Rule 17A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the assessee has neither submitted the same along with the application nor in response to the notice issued in this regard. Thus the assessee failed to furnish the same. 8. The non-submission of copy of order of provisional registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 establishes the fact that the prerequisite for application under clause (iii) of Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not fulfilled in this case. Therefore, prima-facie it appears that the application is not maintainable.”

“1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration filed by the appellant under section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 11.02.2026. 2. That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application purely on technical grounds without appreciating that the appellant had initially filed the application under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, however, due to inadvertent and bona fide error, at the final stage sub-clause (iii) was selected instead of the correct sub- clause (ii), which being a clerical and bona fide error could not have been a ground to deny substantive registration. 3. That the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, as no adequate, effective and meaningful opportunity was granted to the appellant to rectify the defect and furnish requisite details. 4. That the Ld. CIT(E) has not recorded any adverse finding regarding the genuineness of the activities or objects of the appellant trust, and therefore the rejection is unsustainable in law. 5. That the appellant was duly granted provisional registration under section 12A vide Form No. 10AC dated 28.05.2021, which has not been properly considered by the Ld. CIT(E).”

“5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. There is no dispute that the appellant applied for registration under Section 12A/12AB of the Act under Form 10AB on 28.09.2023. The ld. CIT(E) while considering the application of appellant noted that the application filed by appellant is not maintainable and accordingly, a show cause notice dated 02/11/2023 was issued for seeking clarification. The appellant responded to the show cause notice of ld CIT(E) vide their reply dated 15.12.2023. The contents of show cause notice and the reply thereof is not recorded by ld CIT(E) in his order. We find that the appellant vide their reply dated 15/12/2023 prayed to consider the application in appropriate sub-clause of section 12A(1). The ld CIT(E) held that he has no power to change/ amend or rectify Form-10AB. We find that it was an inadvertent mistake and the appellant has already explained the facts and prayed for correction before the ld. CIT(E). In our view the mistake in filing entry was not fatal and could be considered in appropriate sub-clause or clause of section 12A(1). Otherwise, the appellant has provided all the details and information in Form-10AB, while applying for registration under section 12A/12AB. Being first appellate authority, the plea of appellant for correction in Form-10AB is accepted and the order of ld CIT(E) is set- aside. The registry official of ld CIT(E) maintaining record of ITBA portal about the registration of trust under section 12A/12AB is directed either to correct such mistake or allow the appellant to rectify or amend the relevant clause/ sub-clause of section 12A(1). Considering the fact that the application of appellant was not considered on merit, therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the ld. CIT(E) to treat the application of appellant under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in place of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iv) of the Act and to consider the case on merit and pass the order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld CIT(E) shall grant opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant is also directed to furnish complete details to prove its object and activity and make all compliances as desired by the ld. CIT(E). In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes only.”

Order pronounced on this 05th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 05th August, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.08.06 10:28:06 +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5.

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.