GURUKUL SEVABHAVI SAMSTHA DHULE,NASHIK V. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1665/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha Dhule, a charitable trust, which appealed against the decision of the CIT (Exemption), Pune, rejecting their application for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially delayed due to internal administrative issues and lack of professional assistance, which the tribunal found to be a sufficient cause for the delay. The tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to discrepancies pointed out by the CIT (Exemption) in their application for registration. Both parties agreed to a remand for a fresh examination of the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786692 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R.P. DAWARE THROUGH VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Charitable institution

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No. 1665/PUN/2025 Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha Dhule, C/o Ravindra Arun Chanratre, Flat No. A 406, Raghav Building, Roogtha Chitrakut Apartment, Guru Govindsingh College, Indira Nagar, Nashik, Maharashtra PAN : AADTG 7237 N vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.p. Daware (through virtual) For Revenue : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“CIT(E)”], dated 10/12/2024 framed under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”); whereby application for regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac) of the Act has been rejected. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.1665/PUN./2025 (Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha Dhule) 2. The Registry has informed that there is a delay of 138 days in filing the instant appeal. An application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed. The main reason for delay in filing the appeal is due to lack of professional assistance, internal administrative issues and also lack of awareness of appellate remedy timelines. We find that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before this Tribunal within the prescribed time limit and that the delay is not intentional and the assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with delay. We, therefore, adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 138 in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit it for adjudication. 3. The only issue for our consideration before us is that Ld.CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee’s application for regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a charitable trust and has been granted provisional registration u/s. 12AB of the Act vide order dated 10/12/2024. An application for Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.1665/PUN./2025 (Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha Dhule) regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act has been filed on 30/06/2024. The Ld.CIT(E) called for various information to examine the assessee’s application appearing at page Nos. 03-07 of the impugned order. However, the assessee did not furnish any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, as a result, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s application for regulation registration. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee prayed for providing one more opportunity to go before the Ld.CIT(E) and the Ld. CIT-DR is also fair enough in not strongly objecting the request made by the learned counsel for the assessee. 5. We therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case and also in the larger interest of justice and fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and remit back the issue of regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(E) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and file all the details called for by the Ld.CIT(E). Thus, impugned order is hereby set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.1665/PUN./2025 (Gurukul Sevabhavi Samstha Dhule) 6. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 18th November, 2025 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "