SATYANIKETAN,AHMEDNAGAR V. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 461/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Satyaniketan, a trust, appealing against the decision of the CIT, Exemption, Pune, which rejected their application for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act due to a typographical error in the section code cited in their application. The Tribunal noted that the CIT did not provide any adverse findings on the merits of the case but rejected the application solely based on the incorrect section code and the assessee's failure to respond to notices. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Nitdaa Foundation vs. CIT, where a similar error was deemed a curable defect, leading to the setting aside of the CIT's order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312165 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Nitdaa Foundation vs. CIT, 167 taxmann.com 111 (Kolkata \\u2013 Trib.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR KESHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARAD ATMARAM VAZE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.461/PUN/2025 Satyaniketan, Rajur, Tal. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar- 422601. PAN : AAETS2765C Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for approval u/s 80G of the IT Act. 2. There is a delay of 62 days in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the Assessee by : Shri Sharad Atmaram Vaze Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 22.04.2025 29.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : ITA No.461/PUN/2025 2 explanation of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the present appeal within prescribed time limit. Ld. DR raised no serious objection to the condonation request made by the assessee. Accordingly, the delay of 62 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The assessee prays to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal for the reasons beyond its control. The assessee begs to submit an affidavit at the time of hearing. 2. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Pune, is not justified in rejecting the approval on the basis of non-submission of documents like regular approval by the assessee. The application should have been filed u/c (iii) of the proviso to sec 80G(5)(vi) as against inadvertently / by mistake the assessee sought approval u/c (ii) of the proviso to sec 80G(5)(vi). The application for registration u/s 80G(5)(ii) be restored by setting aside his order dt 04/10/2024. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee is a trust filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act on ITA No.461/PUN/2025 3 10.04.2024. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune observed that the assessee furnished its application under section Code-13 clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G which is applicable for renewal of regular approval for a trust and since this section code is not applicable to the assessee trust, a notice was issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune through ITBA portal on 05.06.2024 requesting the assessee to furnish copy of order of approval under clause (i) or (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the IT Act.. The assessee failed to comply with the above said notice, therefore, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune further issued another notice on 19.08.2024. Since the assessee again remained absent, another notice was issued on 23.09.2024. However, the assessee neither responded to the above said notices nor furnished any reply. Therefore, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration u/s 80G of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the application for registration u/s 80G(5) was rejected merely on a technical ground of mentioning wrong section ITA No.461/PUN/2025 4 code and nothing adverse was found by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune against the assessee on merits of the case. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the mistake was a typographical error and inadvertently wrong code was mentioned in the application and there was no deliberate/wilful intention to submit the application under wrong code before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that somehow the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune were missed and therefore reply could not be filed before him. However, it was contended before the Bench that under identical facts and similar situation, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Nitdaa Foundation vs. CIT, 167 taxmann.com 111 (Kolkata – Trib.) allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune to consider the application as filed under desired section of the IT Act and consequently directed to consider the same for grant of approval u/s 80G(5) to the assessee trust in accordance with law. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to direct him to treat the original application ITA No.461/PUN/2025 5 as filed under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act. 6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue supported the orders passed by the sub-ordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that due to a typographical and inadvertent error occurred in the application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act and when pointed out by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, the assessee could not reply and the application was rejected by an ex-parte order. From perusal of order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, we find that the application filed by the assessee was rejected on account of want of prosecution and also on the ground of wrong section clause and no other adverse findings has been given on merit by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Ld. Counsel relied on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Nitdaa Foundation (supra) wherein under identical situation the appeal of the assessee was allowed by observing as under :- ITA No.461/PUN/2025 6 “12. Thus, the whole controversy arose due to incorrect mention of the clause under which the application was required to be filed, which was mentioned as clause (iv) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G in column 6 of Form No. 10AC whereas the same should have been mentioned as clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G and the Ld. AR also admitted this fact in the course of the hearing. Since, Form No. 10AC was filed in time, the error on the part of the assessee for mentioning the wrong clause is deemed to be a curable defect and the application on Form No. 10AC is deemed to be filed under clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G. The order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) is hereby set aside and he is required to consider the application as filed under clause (i) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act and consider the same for grant of approval under section 80G(5) to the trust in accordance with law within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall file all necessary evidence before him.” 9. Respectfully following the above decision wherein the issue of mentioning wrong section code has been addressed as a curable defect and also observing the fact that in the instant case Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not given any adverse finding on merits of the case, against the assessee, we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to treat the application of the assessee as filed under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G (or under the desired section code) and consider the same for grant of approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act in accordance with law ITA No.461/PUN/2025 7 after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce requisite information/documents in support of registration u/s 80G of the IT Act, otherwise Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal are partly allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 29th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददन ंक / Dated : 29th April, 2025. Sujeet आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Exemption, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. तिभ गीय प्रतितनति, आयकर अपीलीय अतिकरण, “B” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. आदेश नुस र / BY ORDER, // True Copy // 21 Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अतिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. ITA No.461/PUN/2025 8 "