TARACHAND GUPTA FOUNDATION,NASHIK V. ITO EXEMPTION WARD1(1), NASHIK

ITA 2539/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Tarachand Gupta Foundation, a charitable organization, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) concerning the Assessment Year 2023-24. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.9,71,939 to the assessee's income, treated as 'income from other sources' due to the absence of regular registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the application for registration under section 12A was pending before the ld.CIT(Exemption) and had been previously rejected but was under reconsideration following a remand by the Tribunal. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order and restore the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment post the decision on the registration application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833787 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VISHWAJIT SHINDE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA AGIWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Competent authority; Charitable institution

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2539/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24 Tarachand Gupta Foundation, Plot No.24, Jaipur House, College Road, Parijat Nagar, Bhonsala Military School, B.O., Nashik 422005 Maharashtra PAN : AABTT4138P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1(1), Nashik Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2023-24 is directed against the order dated 19.08.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Delhi (NFAC) passed u/s.250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 31.01.2015 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable organisation and declared Nil income in the return of income filed o 27.10.2023 for A.Y. 2023-24. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 07.06.2024 at Nil income. Thereafter, return of the assessee selected for compulsory scrutiny as per parameter of CBDT for compulsory selection. After serving valid statutory notices, ld. AO carried out the Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue by : Shri Vishwajit Shinde Date of hearing : 22.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 02.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2539/PUN/2025 Tarachand Gupta Foundation 2 assessment proceedings on observing that the assessee has not been granted regular registration u/s12A of the Act accordingly treated the total receipts including corpus for the year as income from other sources and made addition of Rs.9,71,939/- 3. Against the addition assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and during the course of appellate proceedings assessee stated that assessee has filed appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal against the order of ld.CIT(Exemption) rejecting the application for regular registration u/s.12A of the Act and that the Hon’ble Tribunal has restored the issue back to the file of ld.CIT(Exemption) for deciding it afresh. However, ld.CIT(A) came to the conclusion that since the order of Hon’ble Tribunal does not contain any direction to the authority to withhold the appeal proceedings and that the same is limited to remitting the registration matter back to ld.CIT(Exemption) for afresh adjudication, therefore, appeal filed by the assessee is being devoid of any merit and accordingly confirmed the assessment order. 4. Now the assessee is an appeal before this Tribunal and has raised as many as 11 grounds of appeal but the grievance is two fold firstly that ld. AO erred in selecting the assessee’s case for compulsory scrutiny inspite of the fact that the assessee’s application for regular registration u/s.12A of the Act is pending before ld.CIT(A) and therefore ld. AO has not adhered to the CBDT directions. Secondly a ground has been raised that considering the fact that application for regular registration u/s.12A is pending before ld.CIT(Exemption) the issue on merit deserves to be restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for afresh Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2539/PUN/2025 Tarachand Gupta Foundation 3 adjudication after the passing of the order by ld.CIT(Exemption). 5. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(Exemption). 6. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. So far as the issue raised by the assessee challenging the selection of assessee’s case for compulsory scrutiny, I find that at the time when ld. AO selected the case for scrutiny, the assessee’s application for regular registration u/s.12A of the Act stood rejected by ld.CIT(Exemption) and the matter was pending before this Tribunal. Parameter of CBDT for compulsory scrutiny has been mentioned by ld. AO in the assessment order at page 1 which reads as under : “1. Reasons for Selection of the Case:- The assessee case was selected for compulsory scrutiny assessment under compulsory selection under the Parameter of CBDT for Compulsory Selection \"Cases where registration/approval under various sections of the Act, such as section 12A, 12AB, 35(1) (1) (la)/(), 10(23C) etc., have not granted or have been cancelled/withdrawn by the competent authority, yet the assessee has been found to be clamming tax exemption/deduction in the return. However, where such orders of withdrawal of registration/approval have been reversed /set-aside in appellate proceedings, those cases will not be selected under this clause\". Reason for selection mentioned herein below: .” 7. On going through the above, I find that when the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny at that point of time assessee’s application u/s.12A for regular registration u/s.12A already stood rejected by ld.CIT(Exemption) and therefore ld. AO has made no error in assuring jurisdiction Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2539/PUN/2025 Tarachand Gupta Foundation 4 for selecting the assessee’s case for compulsory scrutiny. Therefore, this legal issue raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. So far as the second grievance of the assessee is concerned, I find merit since the rejection order of ld.CIT(Exemption) has been set aside by this Tribunal vide order dated 03.06.2025 vide ITA Nos. 935 and 936/PUN/2025 and directions have been given to ld.CIT(Exemption) for examining the assessee’s application afresh. Under these given facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised on merits to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication to be carried out after the passing of the order by ld.CIT(Exemption) deciding the fate of assessee’s application for regular registration u/s.12A. Needless to mention that ld.JAO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set aside proceedings. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 02nd day of February, 2026. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 02nd February, 2026. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2539/PUN/2025 Tarachand Gupta Foundation 5 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “SMC” बɅच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "