आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं . / ITA No.1774 & 1786/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वष ा / Assessment Year: -

Shivsiddhi Education Society, V The CIT Exemption, 10, S.No.272/A, MIDC s. Pune.

Chandan Nagar, Degaon, Satara – 415004.

PAN: AAPTS1266F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by CA Rani C. Mutha Revenue by Shri Amit Bobde- CIT Date of hearing 10/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 24/09/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s.12A r.w.s 12AB and 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) both dated 20.09.2024respectively. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We treat the appeal in ITA No.1774/PUN/2025 as lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. The officer wrongly rejected our application even though we were already registered earlier under Section 12AA.

We, Shivsiddhi Education Society, had already received registration under Section 12AA on 28/05/2018. This registration was valid and in force before 01/04/2021 As per the law, we were eligible to get registration under the new Section 12AB. The officer did not consider this important fact.

2. We had submitted Form 10AC (provisional registration) properly and on time.

We submitted a copy of Form 10AC while applying in Form 10AB. When the officer asked again in the second notice dated 03/09/2024, we submitted the same Form 10AC again on 11/09/2024. Still, the officer said that we did not provide it and passed the rejection order. 3. A small typing mistake in our first reply was misunderstood.

In our reply to the first notice, by mistake, we wrote that we were "not registered" before 01/04/2021- but it was just a typing error. We meant to say we were "registered." This was clarified in our second reply, and we also submitted the old registration certificate. But this clarification was ignored.

4. All required documents and replies were submitted honestly.

We gave proper replies to both notices from the department (dated 10/05/2024 and 03/09/2024), along with all necessary documents. We did not hide any facts or provide any wrong information.

5. The officer passed the order without properly considering our replies and without giving a fair opportunity.

It seems that our second reply and clarification were not properly considered before passing the rejection order. This is against natural justice and fair procedure.

6. Our trust is genuinely involved in educational and charitable activities.

Shivsiddhi Education Society is a registered charitable trust working in the field of education. We are not a commercial organization. We follow all tax rules sincerely and have been allowed exemption under Section

11 for past years.

7. There was no misrepresentation or concealment of facts.

The officer rejected the application as if there was some false or misleading information. But this is not true. We acted in good faith and with full transparency throughout the process.

8. The rejection is unfair, harsh, and not in the spirit of the law.

The rejection is based on minor technical issues and overlooks the true intent and compliance record of the Trust.

9. We request that our case be heard fairly and our registration be granted as per law.

We hope for kind consideration of the facts, documents, and clarifications submitted. The rejection should be set aside, and registration under Section 12AB should be allowed.”

Findings & Analysis :

2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[ld.CIT(E)] has denied assessee‟s claim for registration under section 12A of t