Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Kopergaon Taluka Education Society, had its application for approval under Section 10(23C) denied by the CIT(Exemption). This denial was due to non-compliance and failure to furnish explanations regarding discrepancies. The assessee had already received prior approval.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's second application was inadvertently filed as they already possessed a valid approval. The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without considering the prior approval. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application for approval under Section 10(23C) when a prior approval was already in place, and if the second application was inadvertently filed.
Sections Cited
10(23C), 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 09.12.2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Pune denying grant of approval u/s.10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
With the assistance of both the sides and on perusal of the record, it remains an admitted fact that for non- compliance on the part of assessee and that the assessee having failed to furnish any explanation to the discrepancies communicated by ld.CIT(E) while considering the application for approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act, application filed by the assessee for approval u/s.10(23C) of the Act has been rejected by ld.CIT(E). Ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection if the matter is restored to the file of ld.CIT(E) for necessary adjudication.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed us. We notice that the assessee is a society registered u/s.12A of the Act prior to 01.04.2021. Assessee has received the regular approval u/s.10(23C)(iii) of the Act on 27.10.2021 applicable for A.Y. 2022-23 to 2026-27. However, due to lack of knowledge about the changed provisions w.e.f. 01.04.2021 assessee has again filed another application dated 30.06.2024 for approval u/s.10(23C) of the Act. This application is stated to have been made inadvertently and the said application dated 30.06.2024 was not required to be filed given the fact that assessee has already received approval on 27.10.2021. Though during the course of hearing, it was observed that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(E), however, on perusal of page 19 of appeal memo, we find that the assessee has already been granted approval u/s.10(23C) of the Act vide order dated 27.10.2021 and that ld.CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee’s application without taking into consideration the order of ld.CIT(E) dated 27.10.2021. Under these given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no need to remit back the issue to the file of ld.CIT(E) and hold that the application filed by the assessee on 30.06.2024 having been filed inadvertently is hereby treated as infructuous and the regular approval u/s.10(23C) of the Act dated 27.10.2021 applicable for A.Yrs. 2022-23 to 2026-27 is hereby restored. Impugned order is set-aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on this 14th day of July, 2025.