DNYAN PRABODHINI VIDYA MANDAL DONDAICHA,DONDAICHA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NSK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1757/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 November 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT's order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT to decide the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for registration under section 12AB, but the CIT, Exemption, rejected it and cancelled the provisional registration due to non-compliance with a notice. The assessee contended that proper opportunity was not provided and requested more time.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing before rejecting the registration application, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna
For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Hearing: 18.11.2025Pronounced: 19.11.2025

Dnyan Prabodhini Vidya Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Mandal Dondaicha, Sr.No.190/1, Plot No.39, Dondaicha S.O. Sindkhede, Dhule- 425408. PAN : AAATD7889G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 18.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act.

2.

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of Act on 25.05.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune through ITBA portal on 26.06.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification. The desired information was furnished by the assessee. On verification of said information furnished by the assessee, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies in the information furnished by the assessee and issued another notice on 24.09.2024. Since the assessee has not furnished any reply in response to notice dated 24.09.2024, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 31.12.2021 u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the IT Act.

4. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not provided proper opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, the impugned order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. It was submitted that the last notice was issued on 24.09.2024 asking for various information and other details and the compliance was required to be made on or before 01.10.2024. It was submitted that lots of information was already furnished by the assessee and again various information was required through the above notice dated 24.09.2024 and only six days were provided to the assessee to furnish the desired information. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have provided one more opportunity to the assessee since the last date to decide the application was 30.11.2024. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune with a direction to provide at least one more opportunity to furnish the requisite documents/information as desired by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.

6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.

7.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly the assessee made compliance to the initial notice issued by the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and could not file reply in response to final notice. It is the sole contention of the assessee trust that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to furnish reply before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.

8.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & also in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we set- aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the application for registration afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and produce requisite documents/information/ submissions in support of the application for registration without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise, Ld. CIT, Exemption,

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →