MANASHAKTI REST NEW WAY,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3196/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 October 2026AY 2027-283 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application on hyper-technical grounds. It was noted that the assessee had been receiving approval for registration under Section 80G for years, and copies of relevant certificates were submitted. The Tribunal found that the registration was rejected solely due to the selection of an incorrect sub-clause without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to consider the application under the appropriate sub-clause, ignoring the typographical mistake. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manashakti Rest New Way, filed an appeal against the order dated 28.06.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune (Ld. CIT(E)). The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application for registration under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had previously received registration under Section 12A of the Act since 1982, with recent registrations on 09.08.2023 and 28.09.2026. The assessee also had prior approval under Section 80G in 2011. The assessee contended that after a procedural change, they reapplied for Section 80G registration, but due to lack of proper advice, an incorrect sub-clause was selected, which was a typographical mistake.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Ld. CIT(E) on the ground of selecting an incorrect sub-clause, despite prior approvals and a contention of typographical error, is justified? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the selection of the incorrect sub-clause was a typographical mistake due to lack of proper advice after a procedural change. They contended that the Ld. CIT(E) took a hyper-technical view and requested the order to be set aside for de-novo adjudication under the appropriate sub-clause, relying on ITAT orders. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete, CIT-DR

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [Ld. CIT(E)] rejecting the application u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 28.06.2026.

Submission of Ld. AR :

2.

The Ld. AR filed paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee initially received registration u/s 12A of the Act in 1982. Since, then, the assessee has received registration u/s 12A of the Act. Recently, the assessee has received registration u/s 12A of the Act on 09.08.2023 and then on 28.09.2026. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the paper book which contains these documents. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee had initially got approval u/s 80G in 2011. Copy of same is at page 21 of the paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that after the change of procedure the assessee reapplied for registration u/s

ITA No.3196/PUN/2026 80G of the Act but due to lack of proper advice the incorrect sub-clause was selected. The Ld. AR submitted that this was a typographical mistake and the Ld. CIT(Exemption) has taken a hyper technical view in rejecting the assessee’s application. The Ld. AR requested that the Ld. CIT(Exemption)’s order may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(Exemption) for de-novo adjudication under the appropriate sub-clause. The Ld. AR relied on the ITAT orders.

Submission of Ld. DR :

3.

The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption).

Findings and Analysis :

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The order of Ld. CIT(Exemption) dated 28.06.2026 is reproduced here as under :

ITA No.3196/PUN/2026

5.

Thus, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) has rejected the application of the assessee on hyper technical reasons. Admittedly, there was selection of incorrect sub-clause. In this case, we have noted that the assessee had been getting approval for registration u/s 80G of the Act for years together. The Ld. AR filed copies of relevant certificates in the paper book. In these facts and circumstances of the case, since registration has been rejected only because of incorrect sub-clause without going into the merits of the case, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(Exemption) to Ld. CIT(Exemption) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(Exemption) shall consider the present application under appropriate sub-clause ignoring the typographical mistake.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd October, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 22-10-2026 Ravi Kumar आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Sunil Kumar More Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar More Date: 2026.10.25 12:28:12 +05'30' Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →