KAMAL PRAGATI JANKLYAN PRATISTHAN ,PUNE V. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 1888/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kamal Pragati Janklyan Pratisthan, a trust, which appealed against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, who had cancelled the trust's application for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The cancellation was initially due to the trust's failure to provide necessary details during the registration process. The tribunal, considering the circumstances and the arguments presented, decided to set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remand the case for further consideration, emphasizing the need for a just and fair opportunity for the assessee to comply with the requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838357 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2025
• 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: PRATIK SANDBHOR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1888/PUN/2025 Kamal Pragati Janklyan Pratisthan, A1, Kamaldeep Park, S.No. 8A, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune-411011 PAN : AACTK 1829 M vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pratik Sandbhor, CA For Revenue : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 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 24/10/2024 passed under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) whereby assessee’s application for grant of regular registration filed u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) has been cancelled. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 218 days in filing the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed and placed on record. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.1888/PUN./2025 (Kamal Pragati Janklyan Pratisthan) Ld.Departmental Representative (DR) opposed for condonation of delay. We have gone through the contents of the affidavit and the reasons stated for delay and find that the same are reasonable cause and the assessee had bonafide reason giving rise to this delay and also find that the delay is not intentional and the assessee has not gained by delaying the appeal. 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), we hereby condone the delay of 218 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the application for regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act dated 10.05.2024 has been declined by the Ld.CIT(E), since the assessee failed to furnish the details called for by the Ld.CIT(E). He only prayed for affording one more opportunity. 4. Ld. CIT-DR has fairly not opposed the request made by the learned counsel for the assessee. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observed that the assessee is a trust and provisional registration u/s. 12AB of the Act has been granted Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.1888/PUN./2025 (Kamal Pragati Janklyan Pratisthan) on 24.09.2021 for A.Y. 2022-23 relevant to A.Y. 2023-24. Thereafter, assessee filed an application for regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act on 10.05.2024, but during the course of proceedings, assessee partly failed to comply to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) calling for various details. Further the assessee did not file the details of date and place of activities carried out, details of beneficiaries, supporting evidence, bills and vouchers for the expenditure of each activity, so as to prove the genuineness of the activities. Learned counsel for the assessee has fairly admitted that only partial details were furnished. 6. We, however, considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the details furnished in paper book running into 102 pages, deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and therefore in the larger interest of justice, the issue of regular registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication to be carried out after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish the details as called for by the Ld.CIT(E) for disposal of the application filed by the assessee. Needless to mention that assessee shall remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.1888/PUN./2025 (Kamal Pragati Janklyan Pratisthan) 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 19th February, 2026 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. PCIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "