GURUKUL SEVABHAVI SAMSTHA DHULE,NASHIK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1665/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 November 20254 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal, adopting a justice-oriented approach and relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Regarding the rejection of the registration application, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted provisional registration but failed to furnish explanations for discrepancies communicated by the CIT(E) when applying for regular registration. However, considering the larger interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the Tribunal decided to afford the assessee one more opportunity. The issue of regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to be vigilant, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and file all required details. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, against an order dated 10/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 138 days, for which the assessee cited lack of professional assistance, internal administrative issues, and lack of awareness of appellate remedy timelines. The ITAT condoned this delay. The assessee is a charitable trust that had previously been granted provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of condonation of delay). 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its learned counsel, prayed for one more opportunity to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication of its application for regular registration. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. CIT-DR did not strongly object to the request made by the learned counsel for the assessee for an opportunity to be heard again by the Ld. CIT(E).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A”

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha CIT (Exemption), Pune Dhule, C/o Ravindra Arun Chanratre, Flat No. A 406, Raghav Building, Roogtha Chitrakut Apartment, Guru vs. Govindsingh College, Indira Nagar, Nashik, Maharashtra PAN : AADTG 7237 N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.p. Daware (through virtual) For Revenue : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“CIT(E)”], dated 10/12/2024 framed under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”); whereby application for regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac) of the Act has been rejected.

2 ITA.No.1665/PUN./2025 (Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha Dhule) 2. The Registry has informed that there is a delay of 138 days in filing the instant appeal. An application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed. The main reason for delay in filing the appeal is due to lack of professional assistance, internal administrative issues and also lack of awareness of appellate remedy timelines. We find that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before this Tribunal within the prescribed time limit and that the delay is not intentional and the assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with delay. We, therefore, adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 138 in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit it for adjudication.

3.

The only issue for our consideration before us is that Ld.CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee’s application for regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act.

4.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a charitable trust and has been granted provisional registration u/s. 12AB of the Act vide order dated 10/12/2024. An application for 3 ITA.No.1665/PUN./2025 (Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha Dhule) regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act has been filed on 30/06/2024. The Ld.CIT(E) called for various information to examine the assessee’s application appearing at page Nos. 03-07 of the impugned order. However, the assessee did not furnish any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, as a result, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s application for regulation registration. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee prayed for providing one more opportunity to go before the Ld.CIT(E) and the Ld. CIT-DR is also fair enough in not strongly objecting the request made by the learned counsel for the assessee.

5.

We therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case and also in the larger interest of justice and fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and remit back the issue of regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(E) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and file all the details called for by the Ld.CIT(E). Thus, impugned order is hereby set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4 ITA.No.1665/PUN./2025 (Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha Dhule) 6. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →