SHREYASKAR JAIN EKTA SEVABHAVI CHARITABLE TRUST,DHULE V. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 2750/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Shreyaskar Jain Ekta Sevabhavi Charitable Trust, which appealed against the rejection of its application for regular registration under section 12AB(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemption) had rejected the application on the technical ground of incorrect sub-clause selection in Form 10AB. The Tribunal found that such a technical rejection was not justified, referencing previous decisions where similar issues were resolved in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the substantive merits of the application should be considered rather than procedural technicalities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831160 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PSR Sustainability Foundation Vs. CIT (Exemption), Inclusive Recycling Foundation Vs. CIT (Exemption)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT BOBDE
• Assessee Lawyers: CHINMAYY PATHAK
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Charitable institution
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2751 and 2750/PUN/2025 Shreyaskar Jain Ekta Sevabhavi Charitable Trust, Flat No.513, 2nd Floor, Ashok Residency, Korke Nagar, Chitod, Dhule, Pune 424 001, Maharashtra PAN : ABDTS4990F 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)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s.80G of the Act respectively framed by CIT(E), Pune dated 11.09.2025. 2. We first take up ITA No.2751/PUN/2025. Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal : “1] The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting application filed by the appellant trust for obtaining final registration u/s 12A merely on the technical ground that while filing the impugned application in Form 10AB, the appellant had inadvertently selected wrong sub clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) instead of selecting the correct sub clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) which was applicable to trusts who were provisionally approved u/s 12A without appreciating that Appellant by : Shri Chinmayy Pathak Respondent by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 08.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2751 and 2750/PUN/2025 Shreyaskar Jain Ekta Sevabhavi Charitable Trust 2 the rejection of the application on such technical reasons was unjustified in view of the law consistently laid down by Hon'ble ITAT, Pune in several decisions. 2] The appellant submits that the CIT(E) has not pointed out any discrepancy on merits and the appellant trust is genuinely engaged in charitable activities and therefore, the CIT(E) may be directed to grant final registration u/s 12A to the appellant trust since he has rejected the approval merely on technical ground by disregarding the law consistently laid down by Hon'ble ITAT, Pune in various decisions which were binding on the learned CIT(E). 3] The appellant craves leave to add/alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant trust filed application on Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) for grant of regular registration of the Act on 22.03.2025. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant trust, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a notice dt. 05.05.2025 through ITBA portal calling upon the appellant trust to file certain information/clarification. Appellant furnished the requisite details. Thereafter, ld.CIT(E) issued another notice dated 14.08.2025 pointing out certain discrepancies in the details so furnished and the appellant in response furnished its reply. On due consideration of the response filed by the appellant, ld.CIT(Exemption) rejected the application by observing as under : \"7. The assessee furnished its reply on 21/08/2025. On verification of the details / documents submitted by the assessee it is seen that the assessee trust neither have regular registration u/s 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(i)/12A(1)(ac) (iii) nor regular approval under section 10(23C) read with clause (i) / (iii) of first proviso to Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2751 and 2750/PUN/2025 Shreyaskar Jain Ekta Sevabhavi Charitable Trust 3 the said section therefore the assessee trust is not covered under the exclusions provided vide proviso to clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. In fact, the copy of order furnished by the assessee trust is actually an order of provisional approval under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Therefore, the prerequisite for application under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act is not fulfilled in this case. 8. Considering the above facts discussed in the show notice and discrepancies noticed, the undersigned is not satisfied about the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance of requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the assessee as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects 9. In view of the above, the application dated 22/03/2025 filed by the assessee trust in Form 10AB is hereby rejected.” 4. Dissatisfied appellant is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that application for regular registration has been rejected ld.CIT (Exemption) due to the technical reasons owing to selection of wrong sub-clause. In support of its contention, ld. Counsel for the appellant referred and relied on the decisions of this Tribunal rendered in the case of PSR Sustainability Foundation Vs. CIT (Exemption in ITA Nos. 1920 and 1921 of 2025 order dated 06.10.2025 and in the case of Inclusive Recycling Foundation Vs. CIT (Exemption in ITA No.2129/PUN/2024 order dated 27.01.2025. 6. Ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT (Exemption). Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2751 and 2750/PUN/2025 Shreyaskar Jain Ekta Sevabhavi Charitable Trust 4 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record placed before us. Appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of application for grant of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act. On perusal of the impugned order, it is discernible that the appellant was required to file application on Form 10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) but filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. Owing to selection of wrong sub-clause, the application filed by the appellant is rejected. In the case of PSR Sustainability Foundation Vs. CIT (supra) relied on by ld. Counsel for the appellant, it is manifest that the very same issue came up before this Tribunal and the same is answered affirmative holding that mere selection of wrong clause would not disentitle the appellant to its rightful claim. Selection of wrong clause by the appellant cannot be treated as fatal to the proceedings initiated after filing of the application. Finally, the impugned order is set aside to the file of ld.CIT (Exemption) with liberty to the appellant to file correct application. Following the same parity of reasoning, we set aside the impugned order to the file of ld. CIT(Exemption) who shall give an opportunity to the appellant to file the correct application and then decide the case on merits denovo after granting reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(Exemption). It should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2751 and 2750/PUN/2025 Shreyaskar Jain Ekta Sevabhavi Charitable Trust 5 8. Since the facts and circumstances in ITA No.2750/PUN/2025 are similar to that of issue of regular registration, the appeal pertaining to rejection of u/s.80G(5) of the Act is also remitted back to the file of ld.CIT (Exemption) for necessary adjudication in accordance with law. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 20th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 20th January, 2026. 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, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "