SHRI BAHUBALI BRAHMACHARYASHRAM,KOLHAPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 148/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 August 2025Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a further opportunity should have been granted and that the assessee was indeed registered under Section 12AB. The order of the CIT was set aside and the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 80G(5) of the IT Act. The CIT rejected the application as the assessee did not comply with a subsequent notice requesting clarification and was not registered under Section 12AB of the IT Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the Section 80G(5) application was justified without granting a further opportunity to the assessee, especially when the assessee claimed to be registered under Section 12AB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 10AB,Section 80G,Section 12AB,Section 12A

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 Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Hearing: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 26.08.2025

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act on 27.06.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and fulfillment of conditions laid down in clause (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act, a notice was issued through ITBA portal on 25.07.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification on or before 09.08.2024. The assessee in response to above notice furnished desired information as mentioned in the notice. After verifying these details, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies and asked for their clarification on or before 02.12.2024. Since the assessee did not comply to this notice and has not furnished any explanation in reply to the above notice, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was of the opinion that the condition (i) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act is not fulfilled. It was also observed that the assessee is not registered u/s 12AB of the IT Act & accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected and the provisional approval granted on 05.04.2022 under clause (iv) to first proviso to section 80G(5) of the IT Act was also cancelled. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. It is further submitted that somehow the assessee trust missed the last notice & failed to submit any reply therefore Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for approval. Learned AR also submitted that the application for approval under section 80G(5) of the IT Act was rejected on the ground that the assessee is not registered u/s 12AB of the IT Act in spite of the fact that the assessee is duly registered u/s 12A of the IT Act and the certificate of registration dated 24.09.2021 was already furnished before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune along with Form 10AB. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune involving the issue of approval u/s 80G of the IT Act & requested to grant approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act.

4.

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

5.

We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that admittedly the assessee made compliance to the initial notice issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, but the subsequent notice could not be answered by him. It is the sole contention of Ld. AR that if the assessee has not furnished requisite information/documents on the requisite date, one further opportunity should have been provided to him by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, since more than 26 days time was available with Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune to decide the application. It was also the contention of Ld. AR that the assessee was duly registered u/s 12AB of the IT Act, however Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune wrongly observed in his order that the assessee is not registered u/s 12AB of the IT Act in spite of the fact that the copy of the registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act was furnished before him. We find force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case, & without going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the application for approval afresh and 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 in support of the application for registration without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →