HARIHARESHWAR RESEARCH AND REHABILITATION FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2704/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 October 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) had rejected the assessee's application without providing a proper opportunity of hearing on the specific issue of the incorrect code mentioned. Considering the facts, circumstances, and the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case with evidence and information. Consequently, the order of the CIT (Exemption) was set aside, and the application was to be considered de novo (afresh) as per the law. The ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the application itself, but rather on the procedural fairness of the rejection.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harihareshwar Research & Rehabilitation Foundation, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT (Exemption), Pune, dated 30.03.2026, which rejected its application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had initially obtained provisional registration and subsequently filed an application for permanent registration. During the processing, the CIT (Exemption) issued notices for clarification, which the assessee complied with. The CIT (Exemption) observed that the assessee had incorrectly mentioned the code '80G(5)(vi)(iv)' instead of '80G(5)(vi)(ii)' or '80G(5)(vi)(iii)' in its application. The assessee, aggrieved by this rejection, filed the present appeal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of a clerical error in mentioning the sub-clause code? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the mention of the incorrect code was a mistake and that it had otherwise complied with all the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of Section 80G. The rejection by the CIT (Exemption) was without providing a proper opportunity to address this specific issue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Ld. DR, submitted arguments, and the material on record was perused. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments beyond the fact that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application based on the incorrect code.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 80G(5)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

- The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT (Exemption) Pune passed u/sec 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT (Exemption) rejecting the approval u/sec 80G of the Income Tax Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee was granted provisional registration u/s. 80(G)(5)(vi) of the Act in Form No. 10AC. Subsequently as per the amended provisions of the section 80G of the act, the assessee for the purpose of Harihareshwar Research & Rehabilitation Foundation

permanent registration has uploaded the e-application in the Form.No.10 AB on 30.09.2025. Further the office of the CIT (Exemption) has issued notices for the clarifications and information and the assessee has duly complied with the details. Whereas the CIT (Exemption) observed that the assessee has wrongly mentioned the code 80G(5)(vi)(iv) of the Act instead of i.e under section 80G(5)(vi)(ii) or under section 80G(5)(vi)(iii) of the Act and the CIT(Exemp) has rejected the application vide order dated 30.03.2026. Aggrieved by the CIT (Exemption) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

3.

We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed application before the CIT (Exemption) for approval under section 80G of the act. Whereas the assessee in the course of hearing has filed details in compliance to the notices issued by the CIT (Exemption) and the assessee has complied with the conditions laid down clause (i) to (v) of 80G of the Act. The assessee has by mistake mentioned the incorrect code i.e., under section 80G(5)(vi) clause (iv) instead of under section 80G(5)(vi) clause (i) or (iii) of the Act in the application. Whereas the CIT (Exemption) without giving proper opportunity of hearing on this issue has rejected the application. We consider the facts, circumstances and principle of natural justice and shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case along with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT (Exemption) to de novo consider the application as per the law and we allow the ground of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Harihareshwar Research & Rehabilitation Foundation

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th October 2026. DIPAK P. RIPOTE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, Dated: 15th October,2026 Abhishek Mohan आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////

आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar More Date: 2026.10.25 10:32:02 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →