JEEVAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,PUNE vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging that the assessee had mistakenly filed the application under the wrong section (u/sec12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) instead of u/sec12A(1)(ac)(ii)(B)), the Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application without examining the genuineness of activities and substantive merits. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate its case. Consequently, the order of the CIT (Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for de novo consideration of the applications as per the law. The ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Jeevan Shikshan Sanstha, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT (Exemption), Pune, dated 13.12.2025, which rejected its application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had been granted provisional registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) on 31.03.2025. Subsequently, it filed an e-application in Form No. 10AB for permanent registration on 03.06.2025. The CIT (Exemption) rejected the application, observing that since the activities commenced on 30.05.1990, prior to obtaining provisional registration, the assessee should have applied under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) instead of Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)(A). There was a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, which was condoned. None appeared for the assessee during the hearing.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the assessee had filed the application under the wrong sub-clause? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application in a mechanical manner without examining the genuineness of activities and substantive merits. The assessee also contended that it had mistakenly mentioned the wrong code in the application, i.e., u/sec12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) instead of u/sec12A(1)(ac)(ii)(B). Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through the CIT DR, did not raise any specific objection to the condonation of delay. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the merits of the CIT's order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 12A,Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A),Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)(A),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH “A” BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1299/PUN/2026 Jeevan Shikshan Sanstha CIT (Exemption) PO- Urun, Islampur, 322, 3rd floor, ITO, PMT Walwa Building, Singli-415409, Vs. Swargate, Maharashtra. PAN: AAETJ1841N Pune-411037, Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Mithun Shete, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT (Exemption) Pune passed u/sec 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT (Exemp) rejecting the application filed for registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act. 2. At the time of hearing, it was brought to the knowledge of the bench, that there is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay. On consideration of facts and circumstances mentioned in the application, there is a reasonable cause explained and the Ld.DR has no specific
ITA.No.1299/PUN/2026 Jeevan Shikshan Sanstha objection. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee was granted provisional registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) of the Act in form no.10AC on 31.03.2025. Subsequently, as per the amended provisions of section 12AB of the Act, The assessee for the purpose of permanent registration has uploaded separate e-applications in Form.No.10AB on 03.06.2025. Whereas the office of the CIT (Exemption) has issued notice for the clarifications and information and the assessee has duly complied with the details. Whereas the CIT (Exemption) observed that the since the activities were commenced on 30.05.1990 before obtaining the provisional registration in Form>no.10AC on 31.03.2025, the assessee was required to file application u/sec12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the Act instead of u/sec12A(1)(ac)(ii)(A) of the Act and has rejected the applications vide order dated 13.12.2025. Aggrieved by the CIT (Exemption) orders, the assessee has filed the appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. We heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed application before the CIT (Exemption) for registration u/sec12A of the Act. The assessee in the course of hearing has filed details in compliance to the notices issued by the CIT (Exemption). Whereas the assessee by mistake mentioned wrong code in the application i.e u/sec12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A) of the Act instead of u/sec12A(1)(ac)(ii)(B) of the Act and the CIT(E) has rejected the application vide order dated 13.12.2025. The assessee mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the nature of activities are charitable and the CIT (Exemption) has rejected
ITA.No.1299/PUN/2026 Jeevan Shikshan Sanstha the application in mechanical manner without examining the genuineness of activities and substantive merits. We considering the facts, circumstances and principle of natural justice shall provide with 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 applications as per the law and we allow the ground of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- DIPAK P. RIPOTE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MENBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune; दिन ांक / Dated: 16th October, 2026 Abhishek Mohan आिेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीि र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभ गीय प्रतितनति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्डफ़ इि / Guard File. 5. //true copy//
आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar Sunil Kumar More More Date: 2026.10.25 10:46:50 +05'30' Assistant Registrar, आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण,/ ITAT, Pune.
More judgments on Section 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026