BANDI RAMESH SEVA SAMASTHA,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad

श्री रविश सूद, न् याययक सदस् य एवं
श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, लेखा सदस् य के समक्ष ।
BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.655 & 656/Hyd/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2025-26)

M/s. Bandi Ramesh Seva
Samastha, Hyderabad.
PAN:AAFTB0172P

Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax
(Exemptions),
Hyderabad.
(Appellant)

(Respondent)

निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate
रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 03/07/2025
घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 07/07/2025

आदेश/ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:

These two appeals are filed by M/s. Bandi Ramesh Seva Samastha
(“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld.
CIT(E)”), dated 17.03.2025 & 13.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2025-26
respectively. Since these appeals belong to the same assessee and ITA No.655 & 656/Hyd/2025 2

issues are identical, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
2. We take up ITA No.656/Hyd/2025 as lead appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“ 1. The Rejection order dated 17-03-2025 in Form 10AD of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is erroneous and contrary to law and facts of the case and devoid of any merit.
2. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to note that the amendments in Finance
Act 2020 were introduced to simplify the procedure of registration of charitable trusts/Institutions and the amendments cannot be interpreted in a way that is prejudicial to the Trust/Institutions.
3. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to issue show cause notice and provide opportunity of being heard regarding delay in filing application before rejecting it and thereby violating principles of natural justice.
4. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to consider the submission made regarding the objectives of the trust and instead focused only on technical aspects, the CIT (E), Hyderabad should have looked at the entire situation. The Supreme Court has ruled that when there is a choice between doing what is fair and just versus strictly following technical rules, the court should prioritize fairness. The court made it clear that no one should benefit from an unfair situation due to a delay that wasn't intentional.
5. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to note that there is no specific violation by the appellant and complied with all other requirements/conditions for obtaining registration under section 80G of the Act.
6. For the above and such other grounds that may be raised at the time of hearing, it is respectfully submitted that the appeal be allowed and suitable directions be given to the CIT(E), Hyderabad to allow the claim of the Appellant.”

ITA No.655 & 656/Hyd/2025 3