SEWAGUNJ FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. All issues were remitted back to the CIT(E) for denovo adjudication with an opportunity to the assessee to furnish relevant documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for registration u/s 12A and 80G(5) was rejected by the CIT(E) due to failure to furnish explanations for discrepancies. The appeals were filed belatedly by 147 days.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(E) should grant another opportunity to the assessee for adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Sewagunj Foundation, CIT (Exemptions), Pune Flot No.B-3 402, Sr.No. Pune City, 16/3b, Tirupati vs. Kashiganga, Dhanori, Pune PAN : ABMCS 2716 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani, Advocate For Revenue : Shri B.Y. Chavan, CIT(A)-9, Pune Date of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.08.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune [“CIT(E)”].
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') it be kindly held that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemptions ['CIT(E)'], Pune, rejecting the Appellants application for seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act is against the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) be held as not tenable in law and be set aside directing the Ld. CIT(E) to grant registration. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.
On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act it be kindly held that Appellant be kindly granted an opportunity to furnish relevant documents to prove/substantiate its charitable activities before Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) be kindly set aside and Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.
The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
2 ITA.No.866 & 867/PUN./2025 (Sewagunj Foundation) 3. Registry has pointed out that these appeals are delayed by 147 days. An affidavit in this regard has been filed by the assessee along with detailed application for condonation of delay mentioning the reasons which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. The reasons mainly include that after rejection of the assessee’s application for registration u/sec. 12A and 80G(5), rather than filing the appeal before this Tribunal assessee kept on trying to upload fresh applications, but continuous error was appearing on the portal.
We have heard Ld.DR and on perusal of the reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing of appeal in time, we noticed that the delay was not intentional and the assessee would not have gained by filing this appeal belatedly. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice and also following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we condone the delay and admit these appeals for adjudication.
With the assistance of both the parties, we on perusal of the impugned orders observe that the applications filed by the assessee for registration u/sec. 12A & 80G(5) of the Act has been rejected because the assessee failed to furnish explanation to the discrepancy communicated by Ld.CIT(E) in spite of being provided sufficient opportunities. Under these given circumstances and both the parties having agreed, we therefore remit back all the issues raised in the instant two appeals to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication for which reasonable opportunity shall be provided to the assessee. The assessee shall furnish before the 3 ITA.No.866 & 867/PUN./2025 (Sewagunj Foundation) Ld.CIT(E) all the details placed before this Tribunal in support of his contention that the charitable activities have been commenced and the evidence to this effect have also been filed in the paper book running into 15 pages filed on 07/05/2025 and same shall be considered by the Ld.CIT(E) for deciding the application for registration u/s. 12A and 80G(5) of the Act in accordance with law by way of passing speaking order. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. All the grounds of appeals raised in the instant two appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.05.2025.
More judgments on Section 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- 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
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026