KOTESHWAR DEO OF WAI,SATARA V. C.I.T (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 344/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Koteshwar Deo of Wai, who appealed against the decisions of the CIT (Exemption), Pune, which rejected his applications for regular registration under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The initial rejections were based on the non-submission of required details and the previous application being barred by limitation. However, the appellant argued that the applications were filed within the extended deadlines provided by a CBDT circular. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and decided to set aside the CIT's orders, remitting the matters back for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717514 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SARANG S. GUDHATE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.345 and 344/PUN/2025 Koteshwar Deo of Wai 1038/3, Bramhanshahi, Wai, Satara, 412803 Maharashtra PAN: AABTK1673N Vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are against the rejection of applications for regular registration u/s.12AB(1)(b)(ii) and approval u/s.80G of the Act respectively framed by CIT(E), Pune dated 17.12.2024. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that ld.CIT(E) has rejected the appellant’s application on two grounds, firstly some details called for were not submitted and secondly that appellant’s earlier application dated 04.10.2023 was rejected on 15.04.2024. He submitted that thereafter the rejection of the first application on 15.04.2024 for not furnishing the relevant details appellant again filed the application on 28.06.2024. Previous application was rejected as being barred by limitation. However, CBDT vide circular No.07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 has extended the date of filing Appellant by : Shri Sarang S. Gudhate Respondent by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.345 and 344/PUN/2025 Koteshwar Deo of Wai 2 of Form 10A and 10B upto 30.06.2024. Therefore, the appellant has filed a valid application and ld.CIT(E) ought to have adjudicated the application by considering the details filed by the appellant. He further submitted that few details which were called for could not be filed due to paucity of time. A prayer is therefore made to set aside the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(E) for necessary adjudication. 3. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(E). 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that in ITA No.345/PUN/2025 the appellant is aggrieved with the rejection of application for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act filed on Form 10AB on 28.06.2024. One of the ground for rejection of the application is that the appellant’s earlier application on Form 10AB dated 04.10.2023 was rejected on 15.04.2024 being barred by limitation. We however note that CBDT from time to time has issued the circulars extending the time limit for filing Form 10A and Form 10B and vide Circular No.07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 has further extended the date upto 30.06.2024. In the instant case, appellant’s application has been furnished on 28.06.2024 which is well within the extended time limit. We therefore are of the considered opinion that since the appellant has filed valid application, ld.CIT(E) ought to have adjudicated the same in light of the details filed by the appellant. Further since certain details could not be filed due to paucity of time, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. Appellant is directed to update latest email id and contact Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.345 and 344/PUN/2025 Koteshwar Deo of Wai 3 detail on ITBA portal. Appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. So far as ITA No.344/PUN/2025 in concerned, since we have restored the issue of grant of regular registration to the file of ld.CIT(E), the issue of grant of approval u/s.80G(5) being consequential is also remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(E) for necessary adjudication as per law. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 14th day of August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 14th August, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "