JAIN SHWETAMBER TERAPANTHI SHAIKSHANIK SAMAJIK AND SEWABHAVI SANSTHA,DHULE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2588/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 October 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The assessee had filed an application for approval under Section 80G and complied with notices issued by the CIT (Exemption). The assessee admitted to having mistakenly mentioned the incorrect code (Section 80G(5)(vi)(iv)) instead of the correct one (Section 80G(5)(vi)(i) or (iii)). The assessee also emphasized that its activities are charitable and argued that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application mechanically without examining the genuineness and substantive merits. The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate its case with evidence and information. Accordingly, the order of the CIT (Exemption) was set aside, and the application was to be considered de novo. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Shaikshanik Sanskrutik Samajik & Sevabhavi Sanstha, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT (Exemption), Pune, passed under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had applied for permanent registration under Section 80G after having provisional registration. The CIT (Exemption) issued notices for clarification, which the assessee complied with. However, the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application on March 27, 2026, observing that the assessee had wrongly mentioned the code '80G(5)(vi)(iv)' instead of '80G(5)(vi)(ii)' or '80G(5)(vi)(iii)'. The assessee is aggrieved by this rejection.

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, by mechanically disregarding the submissions and the substantive merits of the charitable activities, solely based on a wrongly mentioned code? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application despite submissions made along with Form No. 10AB and additional information. The incorrect code was mentioned by mistake. The assessee contended that its activities are charitable in nature and the rejection was mechanical, without examining the genuineness of activities and substantive merits. The assessee sought an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. Revenue's contentions: The Learned DR relied on the order of the CIT (Exemption).

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: 14.10.2026Pronounced: 16.10.2026

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 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 permanent registration has uploaded the e-application in the Form.No.10 AB on 29.09.2025. Further the office of the CIT Jain Swetambar Terapanthi shaikshanik Sansskrutik Samajik & Sevabhavi Sans

(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 27.03.2026. Aggrieved by the CIT (Exemption) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal.

3.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that, the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee’s application U/sec 80G of the Act ignoring the submissions made along with the application in Form.No.10AB and also additional submissions and information filed in compliance to the notices issued. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee by mistake mentioned the wrong code in the application and further the nature of activities is charitable in nature and the CIT (Exemption) has rejected the application in mechanical manner without examining the genuineness of activities and substantive merits. The learned AR emphasized that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity before the lower authorities to substantiate the claim. Per Contra Ld DR relied on the order of the CIT (Exemption).

4.

We heard the rival 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). The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has by mistake mentioned the incorrect code i.e under section 80G(5)(vi)(iv)

Jain Swetambar Terapanthi shaikshanik Sansskrutik Samajik & Sevabhavi Sans

instead of under section 80G(5)(vi)(i) or (iii) of the Act in the application The Learned AR further submitted that the nature of activities are charitable in nature and the CIT (Exemption) has rejected the application in mechanical manner without examining the genuineness of activities and substantive merits and the Ld.AR prayed for an opportunity to substantiate claim before the lower authorities. We consider the facts, submissions and principle of natural justice and 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 application as per the law and we allow the grounds 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. DIPAK P. RIPOTE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, Dated: 16th October,2026 Abhishek Mohan आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / 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 More Date: 2026.10.25 10:30:24 +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 →