VISHWAMANGALYA TRUST,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD-2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 210/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 June 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SHRINARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRIK.M. ROY (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a valid provisional registration and the mistake in mentioning the sub-section was inadvertent. The Commissioner should have considered the application under the correct provision instead of rejecting it outright.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vishwamangalya Trust, had applied for registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. However, they inadvertently mentioned section 80G(5)(iv)(B) instead of the correct section 80G(5)(iii). The Commissioner rejected the application based on this discrepancy.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under section 80G by the Commissioner was justified, given the inadvertent mention of a sub-section.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(iii),Section 80G(5)(iv)(B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :NAGPUR

Before: SHRINARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRIK.M. ROY

Hearing: 16.06.2025Pronounced: 16.06.2025

Date of Hearing : 16.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 ORDER PERNARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13/09/2024 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune [in short, “Ld. Commissioner”].

2 ITA.No.210/NAG/2025 2. The Assessee in the application filed for registration u/sec. 80G of the Act, may be inadvertently or overlooking has mentioned the provision of sec. 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Act, therefore, Ld. Commissioner rejected the said application by holding that there is no satisfaction about the fulfilment of conditions as laid down in clause (i) to (v) of sec.80G and therefore he has left no alternative but to reject the application.

3.

The Assessee has claimed that it is already having provisional registration u/sec. 80G(5) of the Act dated 15/10/2021 and therefore the Assessee’s case falls u/sec. 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, however inadvertently or overlooking the Assessee mentioned the provision of section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Act and therefore ld. Commissioner would have ignored the mistake of the Assessee and would have applied the correct provisions as applicable .

4.

The Ld. DR did not refute this factual aspect and claim of the assessee.

5.

Having heard the parties and considered the submissions made by the parties. Admittedly the Assessee had valid provisional registration u/sec. 80G(5) of the Act, and therefore the provision of section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act would be applicable and thus in our considered view, the Ld. Commissioner would have considered the application filed by the Assessee 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Act, as filed u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, but he without applying his own mind, simply rejected the application filed by the Assessee, on an inadvertent mistake made by the Assessee. And therefore, the 3 ITA.No.210/NAG/2025 impugned order is liable to be set aside. Consequently, for just and decision of the case and substantial justice, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by considering the application filed by the Assessee, as filed u/sec. 80G(5)(iii) of the Act.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.06.2025.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(iii)

All 687 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →