SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH ANNACHHATRA MANDAL,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

The assessee was specifically requested vide the initial notice to furnish the copy of order of regular registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such copy is actually required to be furnished along with the application itself under the provisions of Rule 17A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee vide its reply dated 30/07/2025 stated that it had inadvertently filed the present application under clause (ii) of section 80G(5) instead of clause (iii) of section 80G(5). Further, the assessee has requested to condone the mistake and consider the present application under clause (iii). However, the request of the assessee to consider the present application under sub-clause (iii) cannot be accepted since the form filed under one clause cannot be considered to be filed under another clause of section 80G(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, prima-facie it appears that the application is not maintainable.

In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is treated as non-maintainable and hence, 'rejected' for statistical purposes without going into the merits of the case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.

Dissatisfied appellant has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order.

Before us, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that application for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act has been rejected ld.CIT (Exemption) due to the technical reasons owing to selection of wrong sub-clause. In support of its contention, 3 Shree Swami Samarth Annachhatra Mandal ld. Counsel for the appellant referred and relied on the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of PSR Sustainability Foundation Vs. CIT (Exemption in and 1921 of 2025 order dated 06.10.2025. Reliance also placed on the following decisions :

Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld. CIT (Exemption).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record placed before us. Appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of application for grant of approval under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. On perusal of the impugned order, it is discernible that the appellant was required to file application on Form 10AB u/s.80G(5)(ii) but filed under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. Owing to selection of wrong sub-clause, the application filed by the appellant is rejected. This issue is no longer res integra by virtue of catena of decisions passed by this Tribunal as well as the Coordinate Benches on this very issue In the case of PSR Sustainability Foundation Vs. CIT (supra) relied on by ld. Counsel for the appellant, it is manifest that the very same issue came up before this Tribunal and the same is answered affirmative holding that mere selection of wrong clause would not disentitle the appellant to its rightful claim. Selection of 4 Shree Swami Samarth Annachhatra Mandal wrong clause by the appellant cannot be treated as fatal to the proceedings initiated after filing of the application. Finally, the impugned order is set aside to the file of ld.CIT (Exemption) with liberty to the appellant to file correct application. Following the same parity of reasoning, we set aside the impugned order to the file of ld. CIT(Exemption) who shall give an opportunity to the appellant to file the correct application and then decide the case on merits denovo after granting reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(Exemption). It should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.