Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 80G of the IT Act. The CIT rejected the application, stating it was not filed within the prescribed time. The assessee contended it was a bonafide mistake due to a misunderstanding of the provisional registration expiry date.
Held
The Tribunal found that the rejection was on a technical ground of delay, with no adverse findings on the merits of the case. Considering the facts and the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the application for registration under Section 80G was rejected on a technical ground of delay, and if so, whether it warrants a remand for fresh consideration on merits.
Sections Cited
80G, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Samaj Shikshan Mandal, Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune. At Post Vinzar, Tal. Haveli, Pune- 412213. PAN : AADTS8676F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G of the IT Act.
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 22.12.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and fulfillment of conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act, a notice was issued through ITBA portal on 28.01.2025 requesting the assessee to upload certain 12.02.2025. In reply to the said notice, the desired information was furnished by the assessee. On verification of the information furnished by the assessee, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies, therefore, issued another notice on 04.04.2025 and asked the assessee to furnish various other details. Not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee in response to notice dated 04.04.2025, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was of the opinion that the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act is not filed within the time allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the IT Act & in view of the above fact the application filed by the assessee is rejected. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. Ld. AR submitted that the provisional registration was granted upto Assessment Year 2025-26 & therefore the assessee was under impression that the provisional approval was going to expire on 31-03-2026 & accordingly he applied prior to six months of expiry of provisional approval. Ld. AR submitted that it was bonafied mistake. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, & requested to remand the matter back to him with a direction to treat the application as filed with in time & decide the application for registration u/s 80G of the IT Act afresh.
Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the order passed Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, & requested to confirm the same.
In this regard, we find that admittedly the assessee was registered u/s 80G since long i.e. way back from the year 2011. We also find that earlier also an application was filed which was rejected due to wrong section code. It is also not disputed that the CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dated 25-04-2024 has accepted the wrong section code as a common error. It was the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that due to wrong under-standing it was presumed that the provisional registration was valid upto 31-03-2026 & due to this fact the application got delayed. It is the sole contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the application was rejected on technical ground of delay & nothing adverse was found on merits of the case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set- aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune & remand the matter back to him with a direction to treat the application as filed