NAVAJIVAN GRAMVIKAS PRATISHTHAN,KALYAN, THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, THANE, THANE

PER RATNA DASGPUTA, AM

The captioned appeal by the assessee arises from rejection by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption) [in short, CIT(E)] of assessee’s application in Form 10AB for approval under section 80G(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Navajivan Gramvikas Pratishthan 2 ITA No. 6648/MUM/2026

The grounds of appeal are as under :-

i. That the learned CIT(Exemption), Pune erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 27.03.2026.

ii. That the learned CIT(Exemption), Pune erred in rejecting the application merely on technical grounds without appreciating that due to inadvertent and bona fide error, the application in Form No.10AB came to be filed under an incorrect clause/sub-clause and such procedural defect could not have been made a ground to deny substantive approval.

iii. That the learned CIT(Exemption), Pune failed to appreciate that the appellant trust was otherwise eligible for consideration of approval under section 80G(5) and no adverse finding has been recorded regarding the genuineness of activities or violation of statutory conditions prescribed under the Act.

iv. That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune is contrary to the settled position of law consistently laid down by the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune wherein it has been held that rejection of application merely due to wrong selection of clause/sub-clause in Form No. 10AB is not justified.

v. That the learned CIT(Exemption), Pune erred in rejecting the application without granting proper and effective opportunity to the appellant for explaining and curing the technical defect, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law.

vi. That the appellant therefore prays that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the learned

Navajivan Gramvikas Pratishthan 3 ITA No. 6648/MUM/2026

CIT (Exemption), Pune for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard. vii. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an application in Form 10AB for approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) on 29/09/2025. On verification of the details/documents submitted by the assessee along with its application, the Ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee had not furnished copy of the Regular Approval in Form 10AC u/s 80G(5)(vi) read with clause (i) or clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Act. Instead, it had submitted a copy of Provisional Approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) read with clause (iv) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G. In view of the above, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application, holding that the assessee has failed to fulfil the pre-requisites of the provisions of 80G(5)(i) nof the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Before us, Shri Ravinatra Khanat, Trustee, submitted a Paper Book containing relevant details that they wished to rely on in support of their claim that their application should not have been rejected. In the Synopsis contained in the Paper Book, it has been contended that the wrong selection of the clause in Form No. 10AB

Navajivan Gramvikas Pratishthan 4 ITA No. 6648/MUM/2026

was an inadvertent and bona fide procedural error, apparent from the documents already furnished with the application. It was submitted that the substantive claim of the assessee was for consideration of his eligibility for approval u/s 80G, and such substantive right could not reasonably be denied because of an erroneous selection of the procedural clause in an electronically filed Form. The defect, according to him, was clearly curable, and the Ld. CIT(E) should have either considered the application under the appropriate provision of law, or he should at least have granted an effective opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect. It was, therefore, requested that the matter may be set aside to the file of the CIT(E) to consider the assessee’s application afresh on merits. 4.1 It was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that it's case is directly supported by the following decisions:- a) Hon’ble ITAT, Pune Bench, in Infant India, Beed v. CIT(E), Pune, reported in ITA No. 3196/PUN/2025; & b) Hon’ble ITAT, Pune Bench, in Hon’ble ITAT, Pune Bench, Skilletz Foundation v. CIT(E), Pune, ITA Nos. 1797 & 1798/PUN/2025. 5. Per contra, the CIT DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E). 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties in the light of the material placed on record. Admittedly, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application only on technical grounds,

Navajivan Gramvikas Pratishthan 5 ITA No. 6648/MUM/2026

without considering the merits of the case, and without drawing any adverse inference against the assessee. It is also evident from the Paper Book submitted by the assessee that it had a valid section 12A registration certificate subsisting from A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27. In our considered opinion, procedural and technical lapses should not come in the way of adjudicating substantive rights, especially where such lapses are capable of being rectified. The principles of natural justice require that where a defect is curable in nature, a reasonable opportunity should be afforded to the assessee before taking an adverse decision against it. In our case, no such effective opportunity appears to have been granted to the assessee for correcting the mistake and pursuing its application under appropriate provisions of law. 7. Under materially identical circumstances, the Pune Bench of ITAT, in Infant India, Bead (supra) had remanded the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, and in the greater interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to rectify the impugned defect, consider the application under appropriate provisions, and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law after examining

Navajivan Gramvikas Pratishthan 6 ITA No. 6648/MUM/2026

all relevant facts, including the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/09/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (RATNA DASGPUTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24/09/2026 Z.U., P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai