ADARSHA SHIKSHAN MANDAL,SANGLI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2403/PUN/2024
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: N.A.
Adarsha Shikshan Mandal,
Fort Area Miraj, Tal. Miraj,
Dist.Sangli, Miraj – 416410. PAN: AABTA2336G
V s
The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption),
Pune.
Appellant / Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR
Revenue by Shri Amol Khairnar – CIT(DR)
Date of hearing
17/02/2025
Date of pronouncement /02/2025
आदेश/ 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 ITA No.2403/PUN/2024 [A]
2
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.
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.
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]
3
2. 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]
4
4. 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.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th February, 2025. (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 20th Feb, 2025/ SGR*
ITA No.2403/PUN/2024 [A]
5
आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant.
2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), concerned.
4. The Pr. CIT, concerned.
5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे /
DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.
गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
////
Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.