QUALITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,ALIPUR ROAD , OPP TO ZAMBARE GANESH TEMPLE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEPTION WARD 1, PMT BUILDING SHANKAR SHET ROAD PUNE

ITA 1718/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 October 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that a subsequent CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 allowed assessees whose applications were rejected due to delay to file fresh applications. The Tribunal found that the assessee's fresh application was filed within the extended period allowed by the circular.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5) of the IT Act. These applications were rejected by the CIT, Exemption, Pune, primarily on grounds of delay and non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT erred in rejecting the application for registration and approval due to delay, without considering the benefit of the subsequent CBDT circular allowing fresh applications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac),Section 80G(5),Section 12AB,Section 17A(2)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Mali
For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Hearing: 09.10.2025Pronounced: 27.10.2025

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 18.12.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act filed on 08.06.2024 and denying the application for approval in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act filed on 09.06.2024. 2. There is delay in filing of both the appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time lim

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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

All 537 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →