KHARDAH PUBLIC CLUTURAL AND WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HOWRAH vs. C.I.T. (EXEMPTIONS),, KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Įी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सटèय एवं Įी Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय के सम¢
[Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member]
I.T.A. No. 541/Kol/2025
Assessment Year:

Khardah Public Cultural and Welfare Association

(PAN: AAAAW 0430 F)
Vs.
CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

Appellant /

)
अपीलाथȸ
(

Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ

Date of Hearing / सुनवाई
कȧ Ǔतͬथ
22.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement/
आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ
11.08.2025
For the assessee /
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से
Shri P. K. Ray, A.R
Shri R. C. Halder, A.R
Shri T. Nayak, AR

For the revenue / राजèव
कȧ ओर से
Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

2
I.T.A. No. 541/Kol/2025

Assessment Year: …..
Khardah Public Cultural and Welfare Association

ORDER / आदेश

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)- Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(E)] dated
28.12.2024. 2. It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 18 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition. On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.
3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed an application for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) in form 10AB the assessee submitted various details in respect to the notices along with supporting documents. The Ld. CIT(E ) after going over the submission and explanation made by the assessee has held that macro insurance activities by their nature involved financial and commercial transaction and cannot be categorized as activity that solely promote general public benefit or welfare as required under the Act. Hence the application filed by the assessee treated as non-maintainable and rejected. The provisional certificate issued to the assessee has also been cancelled.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
5. The Ld. A.R challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that the assessee is a registered society under