MARATHWADA GRAMIN VIKAS SANSTHA,AURANGABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Taking note of CBDT Circular No.11/2022, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding technical glitches that caused mislabeling of approvals.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for registration under Section 80G was rejected by the CIT for non-compliance and failure to provide information. The assessee claimed a technical glitch in the online portal caused the issue, leading to provisional approvals being mislabeled as final.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of application for registration under Section 80G was justified due to alleged non-compliance, or if technical glitches and misrepresentation of approval status warrant a remand.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 80G,Section 80G(5),Section 12A,Section 12A(1)(ac),Section 11,Section 12,Section 12AA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.03.2023 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G of the IT Act.
There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation 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 first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act on 30.09.2022. 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 29.12.2022 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification on or before 13.01.2023. The assessee did not comply to this notice. Another notice was issued on 29.01.2023 to furnish desired information & the assessee was specifically asked to show cause why the application for approval should not be rejected. 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) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act is not fulfilled & it was also observed that the application of the assessee for registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act has been rejected on 21.01.2023 hence the condition under clause (i) of section 80G(5) has also not fulfilled in this case, accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected and the provisional approval granted on 28.05.2021 under clause (vi) 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.
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 submitted that the assessee is duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 since 27.02.1996 and was also having registration u/s 12AA and also u/s 80G of the IT Act since 29.06.2009. The assessee has applied for regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the IT Act on 26.04.2021 and also applied for regular approval u/s 80G of the IT Act respectively under new regime. Accordingly, both the above applications of the assessee were allowed and regular registration under clause (i) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act was granted to the assessee. Similarly, the regular approval under clause (i) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the IT Act was also granted for five years. However, due to technical glitch in Form 10AC the heading was provided as “order for provisional registration”. Similarly, the certificate of approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act due to technical glitch the heading was provided as “order for provisional approval”. Since according to these two certificates, prima-facie it appears that they were issued as provisional, the assessee in advertently applied for final registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) and final approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act respectively. Subsequently, CBDT vide Circular No.11/2022 dated 03.06.2022 clarified that due to technical glitches Form No.10AC issued during financial year 2021-22 in the heading it was wrongly mentioned as “order for provisional registration” or “order for provisional approval” instead of “order for registration” or order for approval”. Accordingly, Ld. AR contended that the assessee was not required to apply again for registration or for approval. However, Ld. AR submitted that all these facts could not be submitted before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and since the assessee remained absent before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, the application for approval got rejected. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, involving the issue of registration u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act & requested to remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the application for registration u/s 80G of the IT Act afresh.
Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.
6. In this regard, we find that the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act was rejected for non-compliance form the side of the assessee. However, in the light of Circular No.11/2022 dated 03.06.2022 issued by CBDT, we also find force in the above arguments of the counsel of the assessee that due to technical glitch the order for registration and order for approval was treated as order for provisional registration and order for provisional approval. It was also the contention of Ld. AR that the fact of registration u/s 12A was also acknowledged by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 23.12.2024 for assessment year 2023-24 wherein the Assessing Officer referred the above CBDT Circular and accepted that the assessee is duly registered u/s 12A of the IT Act and accordingly the benefit of section 11 and 12 of the IT Act was allowed to the assessee. It is the sole contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that all these facts could not be submitted before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, therefore the application for approval got rejected.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the issue afresh after considering the submissions of the assessee in
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
