SAVIKA BAHHUDESHIYA SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application without considering the assessee's contention that no permission is required for running a pre-primary school under the said Act. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee society applied for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(Exemption) denied registration on the grounds that the society was running a school without obtaining permission under the Maharashtra Self-financed Schools Act, 2012.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Exemption) was justified in denying registration and approval without properly considering the assessee's submissions regarding the requirement of permission to run a pre-primary school.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :
These two appeals filed by the appellant are directed against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune [the CIT, Exemption] both dated 30.06.2023 denying registration u/s. 12AB(1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
Briefly, the facts of the case in are that the appellant is a society registered under The Bombay Public Trust Act, 9150 and Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is engaged in the business of running a pre-primary school. The appellant made an application on 02.12.2022 in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) for grant of registration. On receipt of the said application, the ld. CIT, Exemption had called for certain information vide notice dt. 13.03.2023 issued through ITBA portal which was complied with. However, the ld. CIT, Exemption had denied the grant of registration u/s.12A(1)(ac) of the Act on the ground that the appellant trust was running a school without obtaining permission as stipulated under the Maharashtra Self- financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012 (Mah.
Act No.I of 2013). Accordingly, the application filed by the appellant society was rejected and the provisional registration granted vide order dt.16.11.2022 was cancelled.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that as per the Maharashtra Self-financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation)
Act, 2012 (Mah. Act No.I of 2013), no permission is required to run a pre-primary school. In support of this, the ld. AR has drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of the said Act. He further submitted that though this fact was brought to the notice of ld. CIT, Exemption, the impugned order was passed ignoring the submissions made on behalf of the appellant society. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order may be set-aside with a direction for denovo consideration of the application.
The ld. DR has no serious objection for remand of the matter to the file of CIT, Exemption for denovo adjudication.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The short issue in the present appeal relates to whether or not the ld.CIT, Exemption was justified in rejecting the grant of registration u/s.12A(1)(ac) of the Act. On mere perusal of the order passed by the CIT, Exemption, it is evident that the ld.CIT, Exemption has proceeded on the basis that the appellant society had not obtained permission to run a school as per the Maharashtra Self- financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012. It is the contention of the appellant society that it is only running a pre- primary school for which no permission is required to be obtained under the said Act. In the light of the submissions of the appellant society, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a remand to the file of ld. CIT, Exemption for denovo disposal of the application in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant society and we order accordingly.
The appellant also filed an appeal against the denial of approval u/s.80G(5)(iv) of the Act. Since the impugned order cancelling the registration granted u/s.12AB of the Act was restored back in the circumstances mentioned therein, this appeal against the denial of approval u/s.80G is also remitted back being consequential. We order accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 06th day of March, 2024.
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026