Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Adarsha Shikshan Mandal, applied for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application, primarily because the assessee had incorrectly selected sub-section 80G(iv)(B) instead of 80G(iii), and also citing the application was time-barred and activities not genuine. The assessee highlighted its existing Section 12A registrations.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee's selection of the incorrect sub-section was a bona fide mistake and, given the assessee's existing registrations under Section 12A, it deserved an opportunity to rectify the error. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed the CIT(E) to provide another opportunity to the assessee to file a correct application under Section 80G(iii).
Key Issues
Whether an application for Section 80G registration can be rejected due to an incorrect sub-section selection, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify such a bona fide mistake, considering existing Section 12A registrations.
Sections Cited
80G, 80G(iii), 80G(iv)(B), 12A, 12A(1)(ac)(i), 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:
This is assessee’s appeal against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune under section 80G of the Act, dated 20.09.2024. The ld.CIT(E) dismissed the [A] application of the assessee on the ground that the application is time barred. The assessee has raised the following ground (s) of appeal : “1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellant's application for registration u/s 80G of ITA, 1961.
2. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in holding that activities of the appellant are not genuine.
3. The learned CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in holding that the Appellant ought to have applied for regular registration u/s 80G(iii) whereas, Appellant has applied for regular registration u/s 80G(iv)
(B) of ITA, 1961. Appellant contends that, learned CIT(E)'s incorrect selection the sub-section (as above) has resulted in incorrect decision.
4. Appellant contends that Appellant is keen to make all compliances and remain at better side of law.
Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.”
ITA No.2403/PUN/2024 [A]
At the outset of hearing, ld.Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the assessee inspite of applying for regular registration under section 80G(iii) of the Act, selected the Clause 80G(iv)(B) of the Act, which was not correct section. Due to this incorrect selection of the code in the application filed on Form No.10AB, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application. He has further submitted that assessee has received registration under section 12A of the Act, in the old regime and also has been granted new registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act. He, therefore, pleaded if an opportunity is granted, Assessee can make necessary corrections in the application for selecting the correct code for getting registration under section 80G(5) of the Act.
On the other hand, ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue did not object to the contention of the Assessee.
ITA No.2403/PUN/2024 [A]
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records. Considering the fact that assessee has got the renewed registration under section 12A of the Act, there was a bonafide mistake at the end of the assessee in selecting wrong code, therefore, interest of justice would prevails, if one more opportunity of hearing is granted to the assessee. We thus set-aside the findings of ld.CIT(E) and direct him to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to file correct application under section 80G(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.